Responsibilities and Leadership Styles of Radiologic Technology P

Louisiana State University
LSU Digital Commons

LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School
2005
Responsibilities and leadership styles of radiologic

technology program directors: implications for
leadership development
Laura S. Aaron
Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, lcarwi1@lsu.edu
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations

Part of the Education Commons
Recommended Citation
Aaron, Laura S., "Responsibilities and leadership styles of radiologic technology program directors: implications for leadership
development" (2005). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 1722.
https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/1722
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in
LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contactgradetd@lsu.edu.
RESPONSIBILITIES AND LEADERSHIP STYLES OF
RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM DIRECTORS: IMPLICATIONS
FOR LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the
Louisiana State University and
Agricultural and Mechanical College
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
The Department of Educational

Leadership, Research and Counseling
by
Laura S. Aaron
B.S., McNeese State University, 1991
M.S., Midwestern State University, 1998
December, 2005
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Completing this document has definitely been a challenge and could not have
been accomplished without the assistance and support of many individuals. I am very
thankful for the understanding and encouragement of my husband Cary Aaron. He has
made many sacrifices to assist me with my work on this project. I am also very grateful
to my mother Alva LaPointe, who has spent many hours reading the drafts and offering
suggestions and correcting errors. She has also served as a role model to me—
demonstrating that my goals were achievable. My sister, Becky Poor, and brother-in-law,
David Poor opened their home to me while I attended classes for the program. Their love
and support of my endeavors can never be repaid. Dr. Becky Ropers-Huilman and Dr.
Charles Teddlie have been wonderful through this process. Dr. Ropers-Huilman has
provided excellent feedback that has helped me to grow in my research. Dr. Teddlie’s
knowledge of research has been invaluable. I have greatly appreciated his assistance and
guidance. I am also appreciative of the help of the rest of my committee Dr. Hettie
Richardson, Dr. Jan Hinson, and Dr. Susan Gardner and to my former committee
members Dr. Marietta Del Favero and Dr. Christine Distefano.
I would also like to thank my family, friends, and colleagues who have all listened
to me complain, encouraged me to continue, and provided support in a variety of ways.
These individuals include, but are not limited to Percy LaPointe, David LaPointe, Kristi
Williams, Toni Miller, Andy Miller, Jay Hicks, Trey Wilson, Susie Buck, Gavin Luck,
Shannon Lloyd, Kelly Carmouche, Wanda Hardroger, James Murrell, Kelli Haynes,
Tammy Curtis, Becky Britt, Kendall Delacerda, Susie Beasley, and Greg Bradley. Each
of you has contributed to this project in some way whether you are aware of it or not.
ii
Finally, I would like to thank all of the radiologic technology program directors
who took the time to complete the surveys that were sent to you. Your responses made
this project possible. I would also like to express my gratitude to those program directors
who participated in the telephone interviews. I understand how difficult it can be to make
time to help someone you do not know with research. Your contribution is appreciated.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii
LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii
LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
ABSTRACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xi
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Radiologic Technology Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Radiologic Technology Program Directors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Challenges of Radiologic Technology Program Directors. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Transformational and Transactional Leadership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Transformational Leadership in Radiologic Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Purpose of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Problem Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Research Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Significance of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2 LITERATURE REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Department Chairs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Roles and Responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Stressors of Department Chairs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
Leadership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Trait Approaches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Behavioral Approaches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Situational Approaches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Leadership Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Transformational and Transactional Leadership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
Factors of Transformational and Transactional Leadership. . . . . 38
Effects of Transformational Leaders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
Gender and Transformational Leadership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
Critiques of Transformational Leadership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
Leadership Skills of Department Chairs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Department Chair Satisfaction with Leadership Skills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Leadership in Radiologic Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
Concept Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3 METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
Research Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
Research Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
iv
Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
Validity and Reliability of the MLQ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Leadership Matrix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Data Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74
Inference Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80
Inference Transferability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4 FINDINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83
Description of Radiologic Technology Program Directors. . . . . .83
Description of Radiologic Technology Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Description of Interview Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
Research Question 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Research Question 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Program Directors’ Leadership Styles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
Research Question 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Chapter Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Research Question 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Program Directors’ Leadership Styles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .148
Research Question 3a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151
Research Question 3b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Research Question 4a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154
Research Question 4b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Implications for Practice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Modified Conceptual Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .161
The MLQ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162
Level of Importance of Responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Program Directors’ Satisfaction with Leadership Skills Related
to Responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
v
Importance of Responsibilities vs. Satisfaction with Leadership
Skills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Areas for Professional Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .169
Recommendations for Further Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .171
Limitations of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174
REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
APPENDIX
A LETTER TO RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM DIRECTORS. 184
B CONSENT FORM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185
C EXAMPLE ITEMS FROM THE MLQ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187
D LEADERSHIP MATRIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
E REMINDER POSTCARD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192
F INTERVIEW PROTOCOL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
VITA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
vi
LIST OF TABLES
1. Number of program directors interviewed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67
2. Descriptions and ideal ratings for MLQ subscales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3. Dependent variables and descriptions for research questions 3 & 4. . . . . . . . . . .77
4. Independent variables and descriptions for research questions 3 & 4. . . . . . . . . .77
5. Effect codes for program type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
6. Effect codes for discipline of highest degree. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
7. Dependent and independent variable descriptions for research questions 5 & 6 .79
8. Codes for gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
9. Codes for institution type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79
10. Descriptive characteristics of radiologic technology program directors. . . . . . . .84
11. Descriptive characteristics of radiologic technology programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
12. Descriptive characteristics of interview participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
13. Frequency of responses for importance of instruction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87
14. Frequency of responses for importance of department governance. . . . . . . . . . . 87
15. Frequency of responses for importance of student affairs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88
16. Frequency of responses for importance of external communication. . . . . . . . . . .88
17. Frequency of responses for importance of faculty affairs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88
18. Frequency of responses for importance of professional development. . . . . . . . . 89
19. Frequency of responses for importance of budget and resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
20. Frequency of responses for importance of office management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89
21. Means and standard deviations for importance of responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . 90
22. Frequency of responses for satisfaction of skills for instruction. . . . . . . . . . . . . .94
23. Frequency of responses for satisfaction of skills for student affairs. . . . . . . . . . . 94
vii
24. Frequency of responses for satisfaction of skills for department governance. . . .94
25. Frequency of responses for satisfaction of skills for external communication. . . 95
26. Frequency of responses for satisfaction of skills for office management. . . . . . . 95
27. Frequency of responses for satisfaction of skills for professional development. .95
28. Frequency of responses for satisfaction of skills for faculty affairs. . . . . . . . . . . 96
29. Frequency of responses for satisfaction of skills for budget and resources. . . . . .96
30. Means and standard deviations for satisfaction with skills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
31. Comparison of rankings of importance to department vs. satisfaction with skills

for responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
32. Percentage of faculty responses related to methods of learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
33. Means and standard deviations for MLQ variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103
34. Correlation matrix for MLQ variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111
35. Reliability of the MLQ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111
36. Means and standard deviations for dependent variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
37. Comparison of beta weights of leadership styles for importance of

responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
38. Comparison of beta weights of transformational factors for importance of

responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
39. Comparison of beta weights of transactional factors for importance of

responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121
40. Means and standard deviations for dependent variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
41. Comparison of beta weights of independent variables for level of satisfaction with
leadership skills as related to responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
42. Comparison of beta weights of transformational factors for level of satisfaction

with leadership skills as related to responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
43. Comparison of beta weights of transactional factors for level of satisfaction with
leadership skills as related to responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
viii
44. 2 X 4 ANOVA for level of importance of responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
45. 2 X 3 ANOVA for program directors’ level of satisfaction with leadership skills
in relation to responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Leadership matrix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2. Conceptual map of program director responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3. Research design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
4. Modified conceptual map of program director responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . .162
5. Leadership matrix of program directors’ responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
x
ABSTRACT
Leaders in higher education serve in a variety of roles and many times have very
little administrative experience for the positions in which they serve. Radiologic
technology program directors are the types of leaders who need strong leadership skills to
meet the challenges of their role as program chairs. This study examined the
responsibilities of program directors and their satisfaction with their leadership skills in
relation to the responsibilities. In addition, the leadership styles of program directors
were investigated to determine how those styles are related to the responsibilities and
their satisfaction with their leadership skills.
This study utilized a mixed methods approach in order to gain a better
understanding of the responsibilities of program directors in radiologic technology and
their level of satisfaction with their leadership skills as related to the responsibilities. An
explanatory design was employed for this study in which qualitative data were used to
expand the understanding of the quantitative data. The Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ) was administered in order to determine the leadership style, and
the Leadership Matrix was used to measure the level of importance of responsibilities and
the level of satisfaction with leadership skills in relation to the responsibilities of program
directors. The quantitative data were collected by surveys which were mailed to 590
program directors in Joint Review Committee on Education in Radiologic Technology
(JRCERT) accredited programs. Two hundred and eighty four program directors
responded for a 48% response rate. Interviews were conducted with 13 program directors
who responded to the quantitative portion of the study. Multiple regression and two-way
ANOVA procedures were used to analyze the quantitative data, and themes and patterns
were identified in the qualitative data.
xi
The findings of this study identified two responsibilities of program directors for
professional development: budget and resources and faculty affairs. Additionally,
relationships between program directors’ ratings of the level of importance of the
responsibilities and leadership style, institution type, and program type were discerned.
Finally, relationships between program directors’ levels of satisfaction with their
leadership skills in relation to the responsibilities and leadership style, years of
experience, and highest degree completed were established.
xii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Due to the challenges and unique situations presented in higher education settings,
individuals in leadership positions need to have a strong set of leadership skills to affect
positive change. In fact, Birnbaum (1988) suggests that leaders in higher education face
obstacles that are very different from those in other settings. The leaders that must
surmount these obstacles in higher education have a different role from faculty, although
they may have similar backgrounds in regard to education and lack of preparation for
their leadership role. Many leaders may have been high-performing faculty members, but
this does not always translate into being strong leaders. It is often assumed that those in
leadership positions have the appropriate skills for effective leadership, which requires
them to provide guidance and use decision-making skills to make the changes that are
necessary for success. However, many times leaders have very little administrative
experience or training for the role (Tucker, 1993). These leadership skills need to be
developed in order for the leader to be successful.
One type of leader in higher education institutions is the department chair. Del
Favero (2003) posits that the role of department chair requires a balance between their
leadership and faculty responsibilities. Wheeler (2002) states, “an institution’s
department chairs or heads work to translate its vision and mission statements into the
actual programs, services, and products that make a difference in the lives of the clientele
both inside and outside the institution” (p. 451). Department chairs are expected to
provide the leadership necessary to help their programs evolve to meet the challenges of
the current environment. Successful chairs provide a vision that faculty can use to guide
them in their tasks and create an environment where faculty are able to be involved and
1
have a role in the changes that are made. Chairs are expected to work with faculty,
students, and higher-level administrators, to be scholars, and to be well informed
regarding their program as well as the institution (Wheeler, 2002).
Department chairs are faced with day-to-day decisions necessary to run a program
as well as to be prepared to handle the changes with which they are confronted. Lucas
(2000) states,
chairs must accept that change is a constant, develop the flexibility to cope with
change, and shape it rather than be shaped by it. A new leadership role is required
of chairs, one that has not necessarily been entrusted to them in the past. (p. 10)
This “new role” requires department chairs to have strong leadership skills in order to
meet the expectations of the position. Since the leadership requirements of the role are
constantly changing, department chairs need to take an active role in developing their
leadership skills to effectively respond to the needs of the department (Lucas, 2000).
Department chairs have many responsibilities associated with their leadership
role. Tucker (1993) places these responsibilities into eight categories: department
governance, instruction, faculty affairs, student affairs, external communication, budget
and resources, office management, and professional development. Lucas (1994)
developed a model to determine areas of professional development for department chairs
in relation to their responsibilities. According to Lucas’ model, these responsibilities
vary on two dimensions: the level of importance to the department and the level of
satisfaction a chair has with his/her skills as related to the responsibility. These two
dimensions are focused upon in this model to assist department chairs in prioritizing
leadership skill development to the areas that will be most beneficial to the department.
The difference in the level of the importance of the responsibility can be affected by
institution type and department type (Lucas, 2000; Tucker, 1993) and may be affected by
2
leadership style, and gender. Additionally, department chairs will have differing levels of
administrative experience; therefore, their level of satisfaction with their skills is also
likely to vary significantly from one to the other. Department chairs’ level of satisfaction
with their skill level can vary based on years of experience, gender, leadership style,
program type, institution type, and the discipline of highest degree.
The purpose of this study was to (a) identify responsibilities of radiologic
technology program directors that are most important to the function of their department,
and (b) ascertain the level of satisfaction of program directors with their leadership skills
as they relate to their responsibilities. Thus, this chapter will provide an overview of a
specific type of higher education program, radiologic technology, and the role of
department chairs in those programs. Additionally, transformational and transactional
leadership will be discussed as appropriate styles of leadership for department chairs to
adopt for leading their department. The problem will be described and justification for
the study will be provided. Research questions for this study will be presented and the
significance of the study will be explained.
Radiologic Technology Programs
Radiologic technology programs provide students with the necessary knowledge
and skills to become a radiologic technologist. Similar to other professional programs in
higher education, educating students in radiologic technology is more than just imparting
knowledge and skills of a particular profession. Students must also be afforded the skills
to adapt to different patient conditions in a variety of healthcare settings. Radiologic
technologists are healthcare professionals who perform diagnostic imaging examinations.
Through clinical, didactic, and laboratory courses, students are educated in anatomy,
radiation protection, patient positioning, imaging techniques, equipment operation, and
3
patient care (ASRT, 2004b). All radiologic technology programs have these basic
components, but they can vary in their content beyond this. For example, some programs
may have components for students to have learning experiences in other imaging
modalities such as ultrasound or nuclear medicine, or other programs may have content
involving advanced management skills.
Three basic types of radiologic technology programs exist in the United States:
certificate, associate degree, and baccalaureate degree. Certificate programs are usually
found in hospitals or medical centers. Associate degree programs are usually sponsored
by two-year community colleges and baccalaureate programs are found in four-year
universities. Each of these program types has the basic components mentioned
previously, but vary in program length, additional education beyond the basic
components, type of institution, and type of degree granted by the institution. Currently,
the Joint Review Committee on Education in Radiologic Technology (JRCERT) is the
only programmatic accrediting agency for radiologic technology programs. This
organization sets standards for radiologic technology programs that
require a program to articulate its purposes; to demonstrate that it has adequate

human, financial, and physical resources effectively organized for the
accomplishment of its purposes; to document its effectiveness in accomplishing
its purposes; and to provide assurance that it can continue to meet accreditation
standards. (JRCERT, 2001, p. i)
All program types are required to meet the same JRCERT standards. Any student
graduating from a JRCERT or regionally accredited institution (i.e. Southern Association
of Colleges and Schools) is eligible to sit for the national certification examination
developed by the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists (ARRT).
4
Radiologic Technology Program Directors
Program directors in radiologic technology are department chairs who have direct
responsibility for the clinical and didactic portions of the program. These are the
individuals who are ultimately responsible for overseeing that accreditation standards are
met. Like other leaders in higher education, they serve as role models to faculty and
students, share their vision of the program and the profession, supervise and evaluate
faculty, and help to develop students into health care professionals. Thus, these
individuals play a vital role not only in the education of students, but also as leaders of
their programs and the profession. JRCERTs (2001) accreditation standards delineate the
program director’s responsibilities as follows:
• Organizes, administers, reviews, develops, and assures program effectiveness;

• Conducts on-going program assessment;
• Participates in budget planning;
• Evaluates and assures clinical education effectiveness;
• Maintains current knowledge of the professional discipline and educational
methodologies through continuing professional development;
• Assumes the leadership role in the continued development of the program. ( p. 7)
In short, the program director must oversee the entire academic program, which involves
many responsibilities utilizing various leadership skills. While there are many aspects of
a program director’s role that are similar to the roles of other department chairs, there are
also some unique challenges of their role. For example, as technology evolves, certain
radiographic examinations become obsolete and new procedures are developed. Program
directors must stay abreast of these changes and find ways to keep the faculty versed in
new technology and procedures and subsequently prepare students to perform these
procedures as well. Many times technology changes at a faster pace than the resources
and textbooks. In order to meet the continuous changes in the healthcare environment, a
program director must continually assess the academic program. The program director
5
must create a vision for the program that will provide the necessary components to
prepare faculty and students to meet the needs for the future. Thus, it is critical to the
success of the department that radiologic technology program directors know which
responsibilities are most important to a particular department in their particular
departmental context and which skills the program director needs to meet these
responsibilities.
Challenges of Program Directors
Although educators in radiologic technology have a tremendous responsibility to
help develop students as health care professionals, they usually do not have formal
training in education (Hilton, 2003). Radiologic technology educators are trained as
practitioners first. They begin their careers as technologists, graduating from the types of
programs in which they may one day teach. They become educators after developing the
desire to teach in radiologic technology. Joanne Greathouse, Chief Executive Officer of
the JRCERT (personal communication, February 3, 2004) indicated that program
directors become program directors through a wide variety of methods. Some have
previous classroom experience, while others may have experience only as clinical
instructors. Additionally, they may or may not have any administrative experience.
Therefore, a program director may reach that position without any formal training in
education or leadership. The lack of previous administrative experience or training is
consistent with what we know about most other academic department chairs (Tucker,
1993).
Program directors of radiologic technology programs face two problems: their
level and type of education, and their experience as administrators. The current
Standards for an Accredited Educational Program in Radiologic Sciences requires that
6
program directors have a minimum of a master’s degree (JRCERT, 2001). Prior to these
standards, program directors were only required to have a bachelor’s degree. However,
the standards do not specify the major discipline of the master’s degree. There are only
two programs in the nation that offers a master’s degree in radiologic science. Those
programs have two tracks that a student may pursue: administration or education.
Currently, 47% of program directors have only a baccalaureate degree or no degree at all
(JRCERT, 2003). The culture of radiologic technology will change as program directors
obtain higher levels of education.
The difference in level of education and type of education as well as lack of
administrative experience of program directors presents professional development
opportunities. Specifically, the development or improvement of the necessary leadership
skills program directors need to meet the responsibilities which are critical to the success
of the program should be the focus for professional development activities. Program
directors need to understand what type of leadership behaviors will be effective in the
context of higher education. Pernick (2001) believes that it is in the best interest of an
organization to develop its leaders, and that leadership can be taught. Program directors
of radiologic technology programs would benefit if their institutions took this stance and
provided leadership training for program chairs to assist with the developing leadership
skills.
In addition to their problems of education and experience, program directors are
also faced with the challenges of a constantly changing healthcare environment. Many
times these changes have dramatic effects on educational programs. For example,
economic changes in healthcare can impact clinical education. As costs in healthcare
institutions are being reduced or eliminated, one of the outcomes is a decrease in the
7
availability of clinical rotations for students (Johnson, 1999). This can be caused by
institutions decreasing staff and, therefore, fewer students can be supervised due to the
increased workloads of staff. In addition, the number of programs and students is
increasing, which puts a further strain on clinical resources (Abrams, 1999). When
institutions decrease or eliminate clinical rotations for students, program directors must
find other sites to provide clinical experiences for students. If acceptable clinical sites
cannot be found, then program directors must decrease the number of students who can
be accepted to the clinical courses in their programs. Additionally, decreasing or
eliminating clinical sites students utilize for clinical courses can have a negative effect on
student outcomes due to the limited amount of clinical experiences that can be offered
with fewer clinical sites.
Another example of the challenges faced by program directors is the rapidly
changing technology. Sparks and Greathouse (2001) state, “maintaining a curriculum
that keeps pace with changes in technology and job practices is a significant challenge for
accrediting bodies and educational programs” (p. 285). Program directors must remain
current in the discipline and be proactive in making changes to the curriculum in order to
prepare students appropriately for the current healthcare environment. For example,
many institutions are implementing computed radiography in their imaging departments.
Film is no longer utilized to perform radiographic examinations. Instead, images are now
displayed on high resolution computer monitors. Since the profession is in a time of
major transition between these two methods of image acquisition, students must be
knowledgeable about both systems. Certification examinations for graduates of
radiologic technology programs test on both methods. This presents a great challenge to
program directors because there may be few clinical facilities utilized by a program that
8
can provide students with experience involving traditional film imaging systems. Thus,
students must know two systems without gaining much, if any, experience with film.
These problems require program directors to use their leadership skills to find appropriate
solutions. Program directors must create a vision that will lead and motivate faculty and
students to make the changes that are necessary for success.
Those who are program directors, or are considering becoming program directors,
need an appropriate avenue through which to develop their leadership skills necessary to
fulfill the responsibilities of the position. The changing healthcare environment makes
the development of leadership skills of program directors even more critical. Since
program directors are trained in clinical practice and not in education, curriculum, or
leadership, program directors may become frustrated or overwhelmed by their
responsibilities and the challenges of managing an educational program. Armed with the
necessary leadership skills, radiologic technology program directors may be more
successful in leading their departments to meet the responsibilities and challenges of the
position and achieving positive program outcomes.
Transformational and Transactional Leadership
If leadership skills are imperative for a program director, the question becomes,
what type of leadership style would be most effective in this environment? Leaming
(2002) states, “all leaders, must have a basic set of leadership skills, and they must find
ways to create leaders, not followers” (p. 438). A leadership model consistent with that
statement is transformational leadership, which is currently one of the most commonly
advocated approaches to leadership. In fact, Lucas (1994) suggests that transformational
leadership is a model that department chairs should adopt in order to address the
challenges of their position.
9
Bass (1985) defines a transformational leader as
someone who raised their awareness about issues of consequence, shifted them to
higher-level needs, influenced them to transcend their own self-interests for the
good of the group or organization, and to work harder than they originally had
expected they would. (p. 29)
Transformational leadership involves motivating and empowering employees to work
toward a common goal. Transformational leaders help followers move beyond the
minimum expectation by using charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and
consideration (Bass, 1998). This type of leadership is in line with a participatory style
where individuals are provided the opportunity to give input into planning and decisions.
Another type of leadership is transactional leadership, which consists of
contingent reward and management by exception (Bass, 1998). According to Rosener
(1990), transactional leaders “view job performance as a series of transactions with
subordinates—exchanging rewards for services rendered or punishment for inadequate
performance” (p. 120). Contingent reward involves a leader who uses rewards or threats
in order to get followers to comply with demands or requests of the leader (Bass, 1998).
Management by exception involves a leader who identifies errors of followers and takes
measures to correct them.
In order to achieve the best outcomes, contingent reward and transformational
leadership should be utilized together. For example, transformational leadership has been
associated with several benefits including increased satisfaction of followers (Ross &
Offermann, 1997) and increased effectiveness (Lowe & Galen Kroeck, 1996).
Additionally, transactional leadership has also been associated with effectiveness (Lowe
& Galen Kroeck, 1996). Specifically, contingent reward has been positively related to
effectiveness. Lowe and Galen Kroeck (1996) suggest that by offering rewards for
10
desired performance, a transformational leader can increase the likelihood of positive
outcomes. Due to the benefits of transformational leadership, the use of these leadership
strategies would be beneficial to department chairs. Additionally, transformational
leadership skills can be improved through training (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996).
Therefore, leaders can adopt transformational leadership skills and develop those skills
through training.
Transformational Leadership in Radiologic Technology
Radiologic technology is currently facing many challenges with which program
directors must contend. For example, technology is rapidly evolving—images which
were once stored on film are now stored digitally. Additionally, new roles are developing
for technologists. Legislation is being introduced to set basic education standards for
radiologic technologists (ASRT, 2004a). Program directors must be proactive and have a
vision for their program where these and other issues can be adequately addressed. In
higher education, transformational leadership is very useful when change is desired
(Bensimon, Neumann, & Birnbaum, 2000). In fact, Bass (1998) states, “transformational
organizational cultures are more likely to bring about quality improvements” (p. 71). By
utilizing transformational leadership, program directors can motivate faculty and students
to work toward a common goal and meet the challenges of the changing healthcare
environment. Therefore, the utilization of transformational leadership skills may prove to
be a successful strategy for program directors to create the necessary changes.
Purpose of the Study
Radiologic technology program directors are just one example of department
chairs. This group will serve as an example of department chairs and will provide insight
into other healthcare disciplines which share some of the same challenges presented in
11
the healthcare environment. The purpose of this study was to identify the responsibilities
that program directors indicate as most important to their departments and the satisfaction
of radiologic technology program directors with their current leadership skills as related
to the responsibilities. Additionally, the leadership styles of program directors were
identified in order to determine what effect leadership style had on the importance of the
responsibilities and satisfaction with leadership skills. The level of importance of each
responsibility to the department helped to identify what leadership skills should be
developed. For example, responsibilities ranked as most important to a department
would be ones initially targeted for leadership development. Additionally, the
responsibilities and the level of satisfaction of program directors with their leadership
skills are related. The level of satisfaction of program directors with their leadership
skills will serve to focus leadership development efforts on those skills that will be of
most benefit to a department. Therefore, responsibilities that are most important to the
department which program directors have the least satisfaction with their skills would be
the first ones a leader should seek leadership development to improve.
This study demonstrated the relationship of program directors’ leadership style to
their responsibilities and level of satisfaction with their leadership skills in relation to the
responsibilities. Different responsibilities will require the use of different leadership
skills. Each leader has a specific leadership style and a unique set of leadership skills.
Therefore, leaders ranked their satisfaction with their leadership skills as related to their
responsibilities based on their leadership style. For example, a leader whose style is
transformational might rank his or her leadership skills with faculty affairs high, whereas
a transactional leader might rank his or her leadership skills low in relation to this
responsibility.
12
The relationship between the level of importance of the responsibility for a
department and the variables of leadership style, program type, institution type, and
gender was examined. Additionally, the relationship of the level of satisfaction of
program directors with their skills as they relate to the responsibilities and the variables
of leadership style, gender, discipline of highest degree, years of experience as a program
director, program type, and institution type was evaluated. This information will help to
identify areas for potential professional development among leaders in radiologic
technology and serve as a model for further study of other disciplines.
Problem Statement
Similar to other higher education program chairs, radiologic technology program
directors are required to utilize many leadership behaviors in order to guide their
programs. However, the majority of them may not have received formal education to
develop their leadership skills. Program directors in radiologic technology must
successfully work with faculty and students and contend with accreditation, curriculum,
and other administrative issues. Program directors are unique, in that they are involved in
a profession which is tightly coupled with technology advancements, where the
technology and the healthcare environment are rapidly evolving. Additionally, the level
of formal education in their field is extremely variable among program directors. There
has been limited study of the leadership skills of program directors or of the
responsibilities with which they are faced. Two dissertations related to leadership in the
radiologic sciences were identified (Kistler, 1988; Shaver, 2003). Both studies had
samples which were limited to specific groups of program directors. Kistler (1988)
examined program directors in California and Shaver (2003) examined program directors
from associate degree programs. The intent of Kistler’s study was to identify areas of
13
professional development for program directors in California. Shaver’s purpose was to
determine if there was a relationship between program director’s leadership styles and
program outcomes, effectiveness, faculty satisfaction, and the willingness of faculty to
exert extra effort. Both studies were limited by their sampling strategies and neither
study examined the responsibilities of program directors. By identifying the
responsibilities most important to radiologic technology programs and the level of
satisfaction program directors have with their leadership skills as they relate to these
responsibilities, suggestions for professional development of leadership skills that would
be most beneficial to program directors can be made. This could provide program
directors with targeted programs to improve leadership skills that can be utilized in the
operation of their programs. Studies of this nature will be important are important to add
to the body of knowledge for the profession.
Research Questions
This study examined the responsibilities of program directors of radiologic
technology programs and was guided by the following research questions:
Research Question 1: Which responsibilities are perceived as most important to
radiologic technology program directors?
Research Question 2: With which of their leadership skills are radiologic
technology program directors least satisfied?
Research Question 3: How well does leadership style explain program directors’
perceived level of importance of their responsibilities?
Research Question 3a: How well do inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation, individual consideration, idealized influence (behavior),
14
idealized influence (attributed) (transformational factors) explain program
directors’ perceived level of importance of their responsibilities?
Research Question 3b: How well do contingent reward, active
management by exception, and passive management by exception
(transactional factors) explain program directors’ perceived level of
importance of their responsibilities?
Research Question 4: How well do leadership style, discipline of highest degree,
program type, and years of experience as a program director explain the level of
satisfaction with program directors’ leadership skills as related to their
responsibilities?
idealized influence (attributed) (transformational factors) explain the level
of satisfaction with program directors’ leadership skills as related to their
responsibilities?
Research Question 4b: How well do contingent reward, management by
exception (active), and management by exception (passive) (transactional
factors) explain the level of satisfaction with program directors’ leadership
skills as related to their responsibilities?
Research Question 5: Does the level of importance of the responsibilities vary
based on gender, institution type (hospital, 2 year, 4 year, or vocational/technical),
or due to an interaction between institution type and gender?
Research Question 6: Does the level of satisfaction with program directors’
leadership skills as related to their responsibilities vary based on gender, highest
15
degree completed (baccalaureate, masters, or PhD, EdD), or due to an interaction
between highest degree completed and gender?
Research Question 7: How does program type influence the leadership skills
utilized by radiologic technology program directors?
Research Question 8: Why have the responsibilities that have been identified as
very important to the department received those rankings?
Significance of Study
This study will provide information that will be useful to radiologic technology as
well as other allied health professions. Since program directors are program chairs, the
insight gained from this study may be applicable to other disciplines, particularly those in
the health sciences due to the similarity of these disciplines. Prioritizing the
responsibilities of program directors and identifying their level of satisfaction with their
skills related to the responsibilities will provide an understanding of the type of
leadership skills used to meet the responsibilities. Identifying the leadership skills of
program directors will help to create an understanding of which leadership skills are
utilized in order meet the responsibilities of the position. This information can then be
used to create professional development activities that can improve program directors’
leadership skills in areas that are of most importance to the department. Additionally,
this study will build on the work of Lucas (1994) to demonstrate the variables that are
related to the level of importance of responsibilities in a department and the variables that
are related to the level of satisfaction of program directors with their leadership skills.
Specifically, the relationship of transformational and transactional leadership to program
directors’ responsibilities and the level of satisfaction of their leadership skills in relation
to their responsibilities will be demonstrated. Thus, this study will add to the
16
understanding of the responsibilities of department chairs and the leadership skills
necessary to meet their responsibilities. By developing the leadership skills that will be
most beneficial in responding to the responsibilities of program directors, radiologic
technology program directors will be better equipped to meet the challenges of the
changing healthcare environment.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined:
Joint Review Committee on Education in Radiologic Technology-programmatic
accrediting agency for radiologic science programs.
Program director-individual designated by the radiologic technology program to have
the leadership role of the program.
Radiologic technology program-a program accredited by the JRCERT whose primary
purpose is to teach radiologic technology to students.
Transactional leadership-leadership behavior that utilizes rewards or threats in order to
have followers comply with the demands of the leader and includes three factors:
management by exception (passive), management by exception (active), and contingent
reward (Bass & Avolio, 1999).
Management by exception (passive)-leaders react to a problem after it occurs.
Leaders tend to avoid decisions until forced by circumstances of a problem (Bass
& Avolio, 1999).
Management by exception (active)-followers are monitored for errors to correct or
prevent problems (Bass & Avolio, 1999).
Contingent reward-the leader provides either positive or negative incentive to
followers for performance (Bass & Avolio, 1999).
17
Transformational leadership-leadership behavior that creates an atmosphere where
followers do more than is expected and move beyond their own needs (Bass, 1995). Bass
& Avolio (2000) include five factors in their model of transformational leadership:
individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, idealized
influence (attributed), and idealized influence (behavior).
Individualized consideration-leaders show empathy for followers that is
individualized based on the needs of the follower (Bass & Avolio, 1999).
Intellectual stimulation-leaders encourage followers to be creative and examine
different perspectives in relation to a problem (Bass & Avolio, 1999).
Inspirational motivation-leadership behaviors that inspire and motivate followers
to high levels of achievement (Bass & Avolio, 1999).
Idealized influence (attributed)-the impact of how a leader is perceived that
creates an environment where followers become interested in a greater good
(Bass, 1998).
Idealized influence (behavior)-behaviors of a leader that role model to followers a
clear vision and purpose (Bass & Avolio, 1999).
Laissez-faire leadership-leaders take no action and provide no guidance to followers
(Bass & Avolio, 1999).
Chapter Summary
This chapter provided a basic background of radiologic technology and the role of
program directors in that profession. Their responsibilities are very similar to program
chairs in other higher education disciplines. The purpose of this study is to examine the
responsibilities of program directors and their satisfaction with their leadership skills as
related to the responsibilities in order to target areas for professional development.
18
Additionally, this study will examine the leadership styles of program directors in order
to learn how those styles are related to the responsibilities and their satisfaction with their
leadership skills related to the responsibilities. In the next chapter, the literature related
to program chairs, leadership, and transformational and transactional leadership will be
discussed to provide a foundation for the study.
19
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter will present the literature that is related to department chairs and
transformational leadership. First, the role of department chairs is discussed, since this is
the population that is being examined in this study. Next, a summary of literature related
to leadership is presented to provide a historical context for the development of
transformational leadership. Transformational and transactional leadership are described
at length, including the development of the theory of transformational and transactional
leadership, the components of the two types of leadership and a summary of the studies
that have been conducted in relation to transformational and transactional leadership.
Finally, a discussion of the studies conducted in radiologic technology that are related to
leadership is offered. The review of literature is intended to provide a foundation and
context for the current study.
Department Chairs
Radiologic technology program directors serve as department chairs of radiologic
technology programs. Thus, the literature on department chairs is relevant and useful to
describe the roles in which radiologic technology program directors serve. This section
will provide a background on the research that has been conducted in relation to
department chairs and provide a foundation for the conceptual framework that will be
utilized in this study.
Roles and Responsibilities
Department chairs in higher education serve in a role that is multifaceted and
critical to the effective functioning of a program. Carroll and Wolverton (2004) state,
“typically, mid-career faculty members become chairs, most often motivated by a sense
20
of duty or a desire to help a department grow and improve” (p. 8). In working to improve
a department, chairs must serve in a variety of roles. Tucker (1993) lists 28 roles that a
department chair must assume and states “in dealing with various kinds of persons, the
chairperson assumes those roles most appropriate to accomplish his or her objectives” (p.
32). He asserts that the responsibilities of department chairs are increasing within
institutions. Therefore, chairs are required to have many leadership skills in order to
meet the challenges of their role. Since department chairs are called on to fill so many
roles, “it will be essential for chairs to have the necessary skills to perform effectively in
each of these diverse roles” (Lindholm, 1999, p. 3). Hecht (2004) suggests three
important areas of skill development for department chairs: working with groups, making
decisions, and managing budgets and resources. Since these are areas that are of great
importance to a department, it is critical that the department chair work towards
strengthening these skills in order to function most effectively. Bowman (2002) states,
“the real work of academic chairs demands a diverse set of leadership capabilities: well-
honed communication skills, problem-solving skills, conflict resolution skills, cultural-
management skills, coaching skills, and transition-management skills” (p. 162).
Due to the complexity of their role, department chairpersons must find a way to
contend with the issues associated with that role. In fact, Del Favero (2003) indicated
that the role of department chair is difficult because the chair must serve both faculty and
administrators simultaneously. Additionally, Warren (1993) asserts, “dealing with
ambiguity and competing principles is a realistic component of almost all campus
administrative leadership positions. That is especially true for the department
chairperson” (p. 34). Balancing faculty and administrative roles can be very difficult,
which requires effective leadership skills to meet the demands of their position. For
21
example, leading a department requires the leader to provide a vision which will guide
faculty and students. Tucker (1993) indicates that many department chairs struggle with
whether their primary responsibilities are those of a faculty member or an administrator.
In fact, in a sample of over 800 program chairs, Gmelch (1991) found that 60% of
program chairs identified themselves as faculty and 23% as administrators. This supports
the contention that the role of department chair is ambiguous and difficult to balance with
the challenges of the position.
Researchers have provided numerous lists of the roles, responsibilities, and duties
of department chairs. For example, Carroll and Gmelch (1994) delineated 26 duties of
department chairs and asked a sample of 800 department chairs to indicate the level of
importance of these duties within their department. Additionally, this study examined the
relationship between the level of importance of the duty and other variables such as
gender, discipline, hiring practices, and faculty/administrative orientation. Department
chairs in this study ranked duties that affected faculty and the department higher than
duties that were more beneficial to the university as a whole. Further, the variables of
gender, discipline, hiring practices, and faculty/administrative orientation had very little
effect on the rankings of the duties. Finally, department chairs ranked duties in which
they were more effective higher than duties in which they were less effective. This study
provides some understanding of how department chairs view the duties of their position.
And while the variables of gender, discipline, hiring practices, and faculty/administrative
orientation had very little effect, other variables that were not examined may have some
effect.
Another listing of responsibilities of department chairs is provided by Tucker
(1993). Tucker (1993) has delineated eight categories of responsibilities of department
22
chairs, which help to define their role. These categories include: department governance,
instruction, faculty affairs, student affairs, external communication, budget and resources,
office management, and professional development. Within each of these categories of
responsibilities, duties are described which would be related to the responsibility. For
example, department governance includes tasks such as department planning, conducting
meetings, accreditation, and establishing committees. Instruction responsibilities involve
curriculum issues, scheduling classes, and supervising department examinations. Faculty
affairs relates to hiring faculty, assigning faculty responsibilities, evaluating faculty,
handling poor faculty performance, and keeping faculty informed. Some of the
responsibilities associated with student affairs include recruitment, advising, and working
with student organizations. External communication involves issues such as
communication with the dean and upper level administration, department
correspondence, completing forms and surveys, and serving as a liaison for the
department with external agencies. Budget and resources tasks include grant writing,
preparing budgets and annual reports. Some of the responsibilities mentioned for office
management are maintaining department records, monitoring building security or
maintenance, and managing equipment and inventory. The final category, professional
development, involves encouraging faculty research, developing faculty talents, and
representing the department at professional meetings. Tucker’s categories provide a
comprehensive delineation of department chair responsibilities. As chair duties increase,
the new duties can be easily added to the eight categories of responsibilities.
In another listing of department chair responsibilities, Lucas (1994) delineates
nine responsibilities of department chairs. However, these responsibilities are different
from the responsibilities identified by Tucker. The responsibilities chosen by Lucas are
23
related to two roles of department chairs—the leader and the faculty developer. Thus, her
list of responsibilities breaks down faculty affairs into smaller units than Tucker and
eliminates some areas and categorizes them as administrative tasks rather than
responsibilities. Therefore, the responsibilities chosen by Lucas are less comprehensive
than Tucker.
To add to the understanding of the responsibilities of department chairs, Lucas
(1994) developed a leadership matrix for department chairs to identify their strengths and
weaknesses and to prioritize areas for professional development. The matrix involves
two rankings of each of the responsibilities. For the first ranking, the department chair
indicates the level of importance of the responsibility to the department. Department
chairs are asked to rank each responsibility on a likert scale (1=very little importance to
department-4=very important to department). For the second ranking, the department
chair rates the level of satisfaction with his/her skills as it relates to the responsibility.
Department chairs are asked to rank their leadership skills on a likert scale (1=low
satisfaction with skills-4=very satisfied with skills). Each of these rankings is then
transferred to the leadership matrix (see Figure 1). Responsibilities that fall in quadrant
A can then be prioritized for professional development. These will be the responsibilities
the department chair should focus on developing first since the responsibility is important
to the department and the level of satisfaction with their skills related to the responsibility
is low. Quadrant B responsibilities show the strengths of the department chair that are of
high importance to the department. Therefore, these are areas for the department chair to
maintain. The responsibilities in quadrant C signify areas that are not important to the
department and are not strengths of the department chair. Thus, these are areas that can
be the last to focus on for development. Finally, quadrant D depicts areas of low
24
importance to the department but are leadership strengths of the chair. Therefore, these
responsibilities do not need to be developed.
4 A B
Opportunity for leadership Savor success and maintain
development effectiveness
Importance to the Department
2 C D
Low priority for change Doing fine but limit time spent
1 2 3 4
Satisfaction with Skill Development
Figure 1: Leadership Matrix (Lucas, 1994)
Tucker (1993) contends that the responsibilities of department chairs will vary
depending on the setting, which adds to the ambiguity of the position. Differences in the
responsibilities of department chairs can vary, depending on the type of institution
(Lucas, 2000). Seagren (1993) believes,
the roles and responsibilities of and expectations for the chair are all influenced
by the type of institution and by differences in methodology and body of
knowledge of specific academic disciplines. The chair must recognize how
institutional type, history, and culture, model of governance, and discipline can
influence what is expected of him or her, in turn determining the most effective
strategies to use. (p. 2)
25
Therefore, the contextual variables will affect the responsibilities of a chair. In fact,
Lucas (2000) indicates that the role of department chair not only varies from institution to
institution, but also between departments in the same institution. For example, a
department chair in an allied health discipline may see external communication as a very
important responsibility, since regular interaction with hospital administration in clinical
agencies associated with the program is necessary. However, the significance of this
responsibility may be less within another discipline such as history.
Further adding to the complexity, department chairs usually rise to this position
from a faculty position and do not have administrative experience (Tucker, 1993). This
adds to the difficulty associated with this role, since department chairs may not be
adequately prepared to handle the administrative and faculty responsibilities associated
with the role. Chairpersons are likely to have little administrative experience, but, as
indicated by the numerous responsibilities discussed, they need a wide variety of
leadership skills in order to be successful.
Stressors of Department Chairs
As one might conclude from the numerous responsibilities and leadership skills
necessary for department chairs, there can be a significant amount of stress associated
with the position. Gmelch and Burns (1993) conducted a study to determine stressors of
department chairs and to investigate if those stressors were different from those identified
by faculty. The most common theme among the stressors ranked as most serious for
department chairs involved time pressures. Other themes that department chairs
indicated as serious were confronting colleagues and organizational constraints. For each
of the stressors, the percentage of department chairs indicating it was a serious problem
26
was higher than the percentage of faculty—signifying the increased pressure of the
position.
Another stressor for department chairs is lack of time (Gmelch, 1991; Gmelch &
Burns, 1993). Gmelch (1991) identified three professional activities that department
chairs felt they had less time to pursue. Those included: research, keeping current in the
discipline, and teaching. Department chairs also had less time in their personal life,
particularly for leisure time and family. When chairs were asked if they were satisfied
with the decrease in time for these activities, the vast majority indicated they were not
satisfied. The only exception was for time spent teaching—55% were satisfied with the
decreased time spent on this activity.
Since the role of the department chair is complex and stressful, it would seem
apparent that different coping strategies would need to be adopted in order to be most
effective in the position. Miller and Seagren (1997) conducted a survey of department
chairs to identify strategies that were effective in coping with their job challenges.
Department chairs were asked to indicate how important a strategy would be in coping
with job challenges. Thus, a strategy which was ranked highly indicated a strong
agreement among department chairs that the strategy would be effective in coping with a
job challenge. Three top ranked strategies dealt with responsiveness to external
constituents such as business. These strategies included: program relevance, business
and industry partnerships, and monitoring employment trends. Program relevance
involves keeping the focus of the program where it is applicable to industry demands. By
focusing on these areas, department chairs are providing programs that meet the needs of
outside constituents; thus, their graduates’ skills are relevant to the demands of the
market. Another area of strategies ranked highly by department chairs involved
27
professional development in order to cope with the demands of the position. By
developing their skills, department chairs are better equipped to respond to the challenges
of the position. These findings suggest that by addressing strategies related to
responsiveness and professional development, department chairs might be more effective
in dealing with their job challenges.
To summarize the literature on department chairs, the role is very complex due to
the numerous responsibilities and may be affected by contextual variables. The
responsibilities of the position require strong leadership skills. In fact, there is a need for
strong leadership in this position in order to affect positive changes within the department
or program and within disciplines (Lucas, 1994). However, department chairs have little,
if any, training for the complex role with which they must contend, which may be a
contributing factor in the stress associated with the position.
Leadership
This section will provide a background of the approaches that have been used to
study leadership. This review will present the underpinnings for transformational and
transactional leadership by describing the different types of leadership research prior to
the development of the transformational leadership model. An explanation of
transformational leadership and a discussion of research conducted in relation to
transformational and transactional leadership will follow.
Although leadership is a topic that has been written about and studied extensively,
Burns (1978) states “leadership is one of the most observed and least understood
phenomenon on earth” (p. 2). The fact that there are many definitions of leadership
indicates that this statement has some significant support. Bass (1990) defines leadership
as
28
an interaction between two or more members of a group that often involves a
structuring or restructuring of the situation and the perceptions and expectations
of the members. Leaders are agents of change—persons whose acts affect other
people more than people’s acts affect them. (pp. 19-20)
Tucker (1993) suggests that a leader must have followers and then lead them in a
direction to meet a specific goal. Astin and Astin (2000) state that a leader “can be
anyone—regardless of formal position—who serves as an effective social change agent”
(p. 2). Indeed, department chairs are leaders who must provide direction for their
department, faculty, and students, and, as such, require strong leadership skills.
A review of the literature demonstrates a wide variety of approaches that have
been used to study leadership. According to Vecchio (1995), leadership has been studied
utilizing three paradigms: trait approaches, behavioral approaches, and situational
approaches. The following sections are intended to provide a historical context to the
study of leadership.
Trait Approaches
Early study of leadership centered on trait approaches, which attempted to
identify qualities of leaders (Bass, 1990). Different studies identified numerous traits
which were deemed as important qualities for a leader. For example, intelligence has
been linked many times to leaders (Vecchio, 1995). Bass (1990) asserts, “it would
appear that successful leadership involves certain skills and capabilities—interpersonal,
technical, administrative, and intellectual—that enable leaders to be of value to their
group or organization” (p. 86). Some traits which have been demonstrated to be
associated with leadership are self-confidence, persistence, and determination. The
difficulty with the trait approaches was that the list of traits that were associated with
leadership seemed to be endless and did not take into account specific situations. Thus,
29
the results of the trait studies did not demonstrate a consistent group of qualities
necessary for a leader and thus this line of inquiry began to lose favor (Vecchio, 1995).
Recently, there has been renewed interest in trait approaches in relation to
leadership (Silverthorne, 2001). In fact, Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt (2002)
conducted a meta-analysis of trait approaches to leadership. Their results indicated that
extraversion (ρ=.31) was most strongly correlated with leadership across all the studies
examined. The authors contend that this finding demonstrates that there may be some
merit to trait approaches.
Trait approaches provided a litany of traits that could be linked to leadership.
However, the list of traits associated with leaders could be endless and different for each
leader and each situation. While there is a renewed interest in traits associated with
leadership, there are other approaches which provide a more comprehensive view of a
leader.
Behavioral Approaches
The decline of the trait approaches gave rise to the behavioral approaches, which
examined the actions of leaders (Vecchio, 1995). Bass (1990) contends that behavioral
approaches are still the most popular. For example, the University of Iowa leadership
studies used a behavioral approach to determine whether a democratic, authoritative, or
laissez-faire style of leadership was most effective in a controlled situation involving
boys in after school activities. In this situation, boys in the democratic group were most
satisfied and displayed lower aggression than boys in the authoritative group (Vecchio,
1995). The democratic group also produced higher quality items than the other groups.
Another important group of behavioral studies of leadership were the Ohio State
Leadership Studies. These studies described two factors related to the behavior of
30
leaders: consideration and initiating structure. Consideration is described as “the extent
to which a leader exhibits concern for the welfare of the other members of the group”
(Bass, 1990, p. 511). Initiating structure was described as “the extent to which a leader
initiates activity in the group, organizes it, and defines the way work is to be done” (Bass,
1990, p. 512). These two factors captured many aspects of leadership, however, “it was
recognized that some important elements might still be missing” (Bass, 1990, p. 543).
The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) was developed to measure
consideration and initiating structure (Bass, 1990). A leader is scored on each of these
factors, which is then used to describe their style of leadership. The behavioral
approaches were important because they examined the actions and interactions with
followers of leaders rather focusing on specific traits. Leaders could then focus on
specific behaviors that could be utilized to improve outcomes of the organization.
However, as with the trait approaches, the behavioral approaches still did not encompass
all aspects of leadership.
Situational Approaches
Vecchio (1995) indicates that researchers realized that the behavioral approaches
did not address the contextual issues of leadership. In other words, the specifics of a
given situation were not examined in relation to the leaders’ actions. Researchers
realized that the situation could dictate which leadership skills should be utilized.
Therefore, the next studies conducted to understand leadership took situational
approaches. Bass (1990) states, “situational theorists suggested that leadership is all a
matter of situational demands, that is, situational factors determine who will emerge as
leader” (p. 38). One situational approach to leadership is Fiedler’s contingency model,
which has been “the most widely researched model on leadership” (Bass, 1990, p. 494).
31
This theory examines the leadership style of the leader and the situation. The leadership
style is measured utilizing the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scores (Vecchio, 1995).
The rater is asked to score an individual whom they consider to be their least preferred
coworker. The least preferred coworker is an individual with whom the rater presently or
in the past has had great difficulty in their working relationship. An individual who gives
higher marks to their least preferred coworker would be considered relationship oriented
and will perform well in a situation which is favorable to them (Bass, 1990). These
individuals are more motivated by having positive work relationships. Conversely, a low
LPC score, which is consistent with lower marks for the least preferred coworker, is
indicative of an individual who is less relationship oriented and works best in situations
which are very favorable or unfavorable to the individual. Low LPC individuals are
motivated by accomplishing a task rather than by relationships.
Situational favorableness is based on: the relationship between the leader and the
followers; the type of task to be performed; and the power the leader has in the position
(Vecchio, 1995). Therefore, in a favorable situation, the leader and members would have
a good relationship, the task would be clearly defined, and the leader would be in a
position that has the power to reward or punish subordinates; whereas, an unfavorable
situation might involve a poor relationship between the leader and the followers. High
and low LPC individuals are more effective in different situations. This model still
leaves some unanswered questions regarding why some leaders are better in some
situations than others.
Another situational approach is the path-goal theory. This approach suggests
“leaders can affect the satisfaction, motivation, and performance of group members in
several ways” (Vecchio, 1995, p. 368). A leader creates a “path” in order for followers to
32
achieve “goals”. In order to create the paths to achieve the goals set forth, a leader will
utilize different styles of leadership depending on the situation which is present.
Hersey, Blanchard, and Natemeyer (1979) also presented a situational model to
leadership. Their model suggests that a leader should utilize different leadership
strategies depending on the level of maturity of follower (Bass, 1990). A follower with a
low maturity level would require a directive form of leadership and a more mature
follower could function under a delegating form.
The situational approaches all focus on various aspects of a particular situation.
These approaches suggest that the situation dictates what type leadership is necessary to
be effective. However, as with the trait and behavioral approaches, the situational
approaches do not take all aspects of leadership into consideration. By concentrating on
situations, these approaches lose sight of the characteristics of the leader.
Leadership Development
The approaches to the study of leadership lead to the question of whether or not
leadership can be developed. To some extent, leadership is something that is part of an
individual’s genetic make-up and life experiences (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1990). However,
there are methods that can be utilized to develop leadership skills in individuals.
Developmental issues are one set of factors that influence leadership (Bass, 1990).
Studies have examined family influences, birth order, family size, treatment by parents,
childhood and adolescent leadership opportunities, and other factors related to the
development of leadership. Some of these factors have been demonstrated to have a
positive relationship to the development of leadership. For example, individuals who are
either first born or last born in a family tend to emerge as leaders. However, this factor
alone may not be a strong indicator of leadership. The size of a family has also been
33
linked to leadership. Individuals from larger families tend to develop as leaders. Parents
also can have a great effect on the development of leadership. Individuals with parents
who allowed them to participate in decision making developed leadership skills.
Additionally, individuals who were given opportunities to take risks and make mistakes,
develop leadership skills from these experiences. All of these experiences provide
individuals with a better understanding of how to interact with others and approach
problems. Another factor associated with the development of leadership skills are
opportunities in childhood and adolescence to practice as leaders. Extracurricular
activities such as team sports and other group activities foster the development of
cooperation and social interaction skills that are useful in learning leadership.
Education can also have a positive impact on the development of leadership
(Bass, 1990). Secondary and higher education institutions have made efforts to educate
individuals in leadership. There are also continuing education programs and workshops
that have the aim of leadership development. Thus, training can positively affect
leadership development.
Bass (1990) contends,
whatever the education or training effort, its effectiveness in improving leadership

performance depends first on identifying what needs improvement and then on
demonstrating or helping the trainee or student discover how to change his or her
perceptions, cognitions, attitudes, and behavior. (pp. 817-818)
Therefore, in order to focus leadership development to those skills which will be most
appropriate for an individual, the specific needs of that person must be identified.
Leadership training can be conducted in a variety of formats, including: lecture,
discussion, role play, and computer-based instruction. Positive effects from leadership
34
training depend on the willingness of an individual to change behaviors and opportunities
to apply leadership skills in real-life settings.
As this review outlines, the study of leadership has progressed through three
major paradigms: trait, behavioral, and situational approaches and leadership can be
developed through training. Each of the paradigms describes some aspects of a leader,
but none are comprehensive or capture the complete essence of leadership. For example,
behavioral approaches provide an understanding of the typical actions of a leader, but do
not account for different situations that leaders may face. As such, a combination of
these approaches may offer a more complete picture of a leader. In fact, Hunt (1999)
suggested that in the 1970s and 1980s the study of leadership had become static. Then,
transformational leadership was introduced and created a new interest in the study of
leadership (Hunt, 1999). Bass (1990) states, “transformational leadership is closer to the
prototype of leadership that people have in mind when they describe their ideal leader”
(p. 54). The description of a transformational leader provides a comprehensive view of
leadership that can apply to any setting. The following sections describe transformational
leadership and the research that has been conducted in relation to the theory.
Transformational and Transactional Leadership
Currently, transformational and transactional leadership are one of the most
common approaches to the study of leadership. The transformational and transactional
leadership model has been widely studied and transformational leadership has been
linked to positive employee behaviors and work unit effectiveness. Therefore, these
leadership practices can be useful for department chairs to adopt. Transformational
leadership is a hybrid leadership theory blending trait and situational approaches to
understand leadership (Bass, 1990). Bass (1997) contends that transformational and
35
transactional leadership are universal and can, therefore, be observed in all organizations
and cultures. Numerous studies examining transactional and transformational leadership
have been conducted in a wide variety of organizations and in numerous countries. The
evidence from these studies indicates that transformational leadership is identified
universally except in extreme contexts where the relationship of the leader and followers
is unimportant.
Hunt (1999) posits that the advent of transformational leadership theory created a
renewed interest in the study of leadership. Research that was conducted by scholars in
relation to transformational leadership was accepted by those who practiced in
management because the description of transformational leadership more closely
depicted what practitioners viewed as leadership from their experiences. Thus,
transformational leadership presented an approach that is realistic to individuals—one
which describes leadership in terms that relate to leaders that one has encountered.
The first description of transformational leadership was provided by Burns.
Burns (1978) conceptualized leadership on a continuum with transformational on one end
and transactional on the other. He felt that most leaders were transactional, in which
there is an exchange between leaders and followers, whereas transformational leadership
involves leaders having a relationship with followers through which they inspire and
motivate them to reach their full potential. In the early 1980s, Bernard Bass read Burns’
work and began his own study of transformational and transactional leadership (Bass,
1995). Bass conducted many studies and eventually developed the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to measure transformational and transactional
leadership. From Bass’ early work, transactional leadership was conceptualized as an
exchange of rewards for positive performance. Transformational leaders were able to get
36
followers to do more than was expected and put the organizational needs above their own
needs (Bass, 1995). He contends that transformational leaders are not rare and that
everyone has had interactions with leaders who possess these qualities.
Bass began to try to measure transformational and transactional leadership with
the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ)(Bass, 1995). This proved to be
unsuccessful since the instrument did not distinguish between transformational and
transactional leaders. The lack of success with the LBDQ motivated Bass to develop his
own instrument to measure the concepts.
One primary difference in Burns’ and Bass’ conceptualization of transformational
and transactional leadership is that Bass did not view these two constructs to be at
opposite ends of a continuum. In fact, Bass (1995) posits that leaders can utilize both
forms of leadership and should do so in order to be most effective. Different situations
require different leadership approaches. This supports the hybrid nature of
transformational leadership—consisting of trait and situational approaches. Specifically,
different situations will require different types of leadership. Thus, a leader will need
transformational and transactional skills in order to use both effectively. Additionally,
leaders have common traits and behaviors that can be linked to leadership. Thus, this
leadership approach does what trait, behavioral, and situational approaches do not do
alone—transformational leadership can provide a comprehensive view of leadership by
recognizing not only the traits of leaders, but also acknowledging the situational aspects
of leadership.
Transformational leaders create an atmosphere where followers are compelled to
be more productive and move beyond their own needs (Bass, 1995). Transformational
leadership is a leadership style that can be applied to any setting. In higher education,
37
leaders face numerous situations in which transformational leadership would be
appropriate. This clearly relates to radiologic technology program directors. Radiologic
technology program directors are in a profession that has rapidly changing technology,
cyclical periods of workforce shortages and gluts, and a constantly changing healthcare
environment. In order to contend with these and many other challenges, one approach
which could be adopted is that of transformational leadership. Transformational
leadership creates an organizational culture that is adaptive to the environment (Bass,
1998). Therefore, this approach could be utilized to create an environment where the
change that is necessary for success is possible.
Factors of Transformational and Transactional Leadership
Transformational and transactional leadership are further conceptualized by
examining the factors derived from factor analysis associated with each as discussed in
the literature. An understanding of the factors that comprise these leadership behaviors
forms a foundation on which skills to increase effective leadership strategies can be built.
The following section outlines the factors related to transformational and transactional
leadership and presents the model which encompasses all of the factors.
Bass (1998) describes transformational leadership as having four main factors as
determined from factor analysis: charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and
consideration. The first factor Bass (1995) described was charisma. Charismatic leaders
create an atmosphere where followers want to imitate the leader. They serve as role
models that are “admired, respected, and trusted” (Bass, 1998, p. 5). Charisma is broken
down into attributed charisma and behavioral charisma (Antonakis & House, 2002).
Attributed charisma refers to how a follower perceives a leader’s power and confidence,
whereas behavioral charisma refers to specific behaviors the leader displays related to
38
their mission and vision. Charisma is now referred to as idealized influence (Bass &
Avolio, 2000). According to Bass (1998), charisma and inspiration go hand in hand.
Transformational leaders motivate followers by providing enthusiasm for the goals that
have been set. By sharing goals and expectations, leaders can inspire followers to work
as a team to meet the goals of the organization. Transformational leaders also provide
intellectual stimulation by encouraging creativity, new ideas, and looking at problems in
a unique way. Additionally, mistakes are not criticized with others present—instead,
followers’ suggestions are considered in order to solve problems (Bass, 1998). Finally,
these leaders show consideration for followers. Bass (1998) states, “transformational
leaders pay special attention to each individual follower’s needs for achievement and
growth by acting as coach or mentor” (p. 6). Consideration can be either positive or
negative feedback, both of which are intended to help the follower grow (Avolio & Bass,
1995). All of these characteristics help to form the basis for transformational leadership.
Transactional leadership also has several factors as identified from factor analysis:
contingent reward, management by exception (active) and management by exception
(passive) (Bass, 1998). Contingent reward is the most easily recognizable and most
positive of these factors. With this type of leadership, the leader provides some sort of
incentive, whether it is positive or negative, to followers for their behavior. For example,
a faculty member who agrees to take a heavier teaching load than normal may be
rewarded by receiving a less strenuous schedule the following term. Management by
exception involves close supervision of followers and is considered to be more negative
than contingent reward (Bass, 1998). Followers who do not follow procedure or make
errors will be corrected. Management by exception can be either active or passive
(Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). With active management by exception, followers are
39
monitored in order to correct or attempt to prevent problems, whereas with passive
management by exception, the leader waits for problems to occur and then takes action to
correct them. Passive leaders only react when a problem is so large that they must take
action. These types of leaders try to avoid making decisions until forced by the
circumstances of a problem.
Finally, there is laissez-faire leadership. This form of leadership is a lack of
leadership—the leader takes no action and does not provide any guidance to followers.
Antonakis and House (2002) state, “these types of leaders avoid taking positions or
making decisions, and abdicate their authority” (p. 10).
All of the factors of transformational, transactional, and laissez faire leadership
are encompassed in the Full Range of Leadership Theory (FRLT). According to the
FRLT, leaders demonstrate all of these leadership styles to some degree (Bass, 1998).
An optimal leader will rarely display laissez-faire leadership, moderately display
transactional characteristics, and most often demonstrate transformational leadership.
Effects of Transformational Leaders
There has been considerable research conducted in relation to transformational
and transactional leadership. Much of this research associates transformational
leadership with positive outcomes. For example, in an early study of transformational
leadership, the relationship of the behavioral constructs of initiation and consideration
and follower outcomes was examined (Seltzer & Bass, 1990). This study demonstrated
that transformational leadership, as measured by the MLQ added to the variance
explained by initiation and consideration. Additionally, transformational leadership had a
positive impact on the effectiveness of the leader and the followers’ satisfaction.
Therefore, transformational leadership adds to the understanding of leadership beyond
40
the constructs of initiation and consideration. One criticism of the behavioral constructs
of initiation and consideration is that it did not fully describe leadership (Bass, 1990).
Since transformational leadership provides information regarding leadership beyond the
behavioral constructs of initiation and consideration, a more complete description of
leadership is given. The study of transformational leadership has taken many directions.
The following sections summarize some of the research conducted in relation to this
concept of leadership and the positive relationship with followers and other leadership
outcomes.
One positive effect of transformational leadership that has been identified is
follower satisfaction and trust (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996; Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer (1996)
collected data from 1539 employees in different organizations regarding the effects of
transformational leadership. The results of the study demonstrated that transformational
leadership was positively related to employee satisfaction and trust. In another
investigation, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) had similar findings.
In this study, 988 employees were surveyed regarding the transformational and
transactional leadership behaviors of their leaders. The results of the study suggested that
transformational leadership behaviors were positively related to employee satisfaction
and trust. Additionally, transactional leadership behavior, specifically contingent reward
had no effect on employee satisfaction and trust. Combined, these studies provide
significant support for utilizing transformational leadership behaviors to positively
impact employee satisfaction and trust.
There have also been studies of transformational leadership and personality traits
(Judge & Bono, 2000; Ross & Offermann, 1997). Ross and Offerman (1997) collected
41
data from 4200 cadets in the U.S. Air Force regarding the transformational leadership
behaviors and personality of their squadron leaders. The results of the study indicate that
transformational leadership was positively related to feminine attributes, pragmatism, and
nurturance. Additionally, there was a negative relationship between transformational
leadership and the personality attributes of criticalness and aggression. These findings
are consistent with one of the constructs of transformational leadership—consideration.
When a transformational leader displays consideration, it would be expected that
nurturance would be identified. It would also hold true that there would be a negative
relationship between consideration and criticalness and aggression. The study also
demonstrated that transformational leaders’ followers were more satisfied than followers
of other types of leaders. In another study of traits related to transformational leadership,
Judge and Bono (2000) found agreeableness, extraversion, and openness to experience
positively correlated to the construct. For this study, a sample of participants and alumni
of a leadership program were asked to complete a personality survey. Additionally,
employees of the participants and alumni were asked to complete a survey regarding the
transformational leadership behaviors of these leaders. Of the three personality traits
which were determined to be positively related to transformational leadership,
agreeableness showed the strongest relationship. The authors of this study contend these
traits may be useful in selecting transformational leaders.
Another benefit of transformational leadership is related to the effectiveness of
the leaders. Transformational leadership has been linked to effective leadership, but
transactional leadership is also necessary in certain situations (Lowe & Galen Kroeck,
1996). The results of Lowe and Galen Kroeck’s (1996) meta-analysis indicate that the
transactional component, contingent reward, has a positive relationship with employee
42
perceptions of effectiveness. This was found primarily in public organizations.
Specifically, the contingent reward component of transactional leadership is most
important in regard to leadership effectiveness. Bass (1995) asserts “the best leaders are
both transformational and transactional” (p. 474). Hater and Bass (1988) found that
leaders who were rated as more effective had higher transformational leadership scores
than leaders rated as less effective. In this study, 54 leaders were evaluated utilizing the
MLQ by 362 subordinates regarding the leadership behaviors of the leaders. The leaders
who were selected for the study were a combination of top performers and ordinary
managers. The top performers had higher transformational leadership ratings than did the
ordinary managers. Additionally, those leaders who had higher transformational ratings
also had higher subordinate satisfaction ratings and work unit effectiveness ratings.
In addition, research has demonstrated that transformational leaders tend to have
more committed followers than transactional leaders (Bass, 1998). This is achieved
through charisma and inspiration of the followers. Bass also contends that different
situations call for different types of leadership. Both transformational and transactional
can be effective, depending upon the situation. Bass indicates that stronger, more stable
organizations are better suited for transformational leadership. Since transformational
leadership is a hybrid model of leadership, it would be expected that there would be
situational components in the model. Thus, different organizations may be better suited
to transformational leadership than others. Additionally, the trait portion of the model
would help to explain why transformational leaders are associated with certain traits,
perceived to be more effective, and evoke follower trust and satisfaction.
Transformational leaders have been found in educational settings as well. Kirby,
Paradise, and King (1992) conducted a mixed methods study to examine transformational
43
leadership in educational settings. The study utilized a sequential QUAN/QUAL design
using the MLQ for the quantitative data and interviews for the qualitative data. The
intent of the interviews was to explain the quantitative data and examine aspects of
leadership beyond those measured by the MLQ. The results of the study indicate that
transformational leadership was positively related to perceptions of leader effectiveness
and follower satisfaction. In particular, the transformational factor of intellectual
stimulation had a positive correlation with effectiveness and satisfaction. Additionally,
the factor of individualized consideration was positively related to effectiveness. This
study demonstrated the use of transformational leadership by educational leaders and the
benefit of a mixed methods approach to the study of leadership.
Leaders can increase their transformational leadership skills through training.
This is a critical consideration in determining whether to utilize this leadership model in
an organization. To demonstrate this concept, Barling, Weber, and Kelloway (1996)
conducted a pretest-posttest experiment. Managers were placed in two groups—a control
group and an experimental group. Both groups completed the MLQ. The experimental
group then received training on transformational leadership consisting of a one day
workshop and additional personalized sessions designed to aid in implementing strategies
learned in the workshop. A posttest was administered to both groups. Results indicated
that managers who received training through leadership workshops did increase their
transformational leadership skills. This supports the notion that transformational
leadership can be learned. Therefore, transformational leadership skills can be taught to
individuals as an effective leadership style to adopt.
Transformational leadership has a positive effect on follower satisfaction and trust
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter,
44
1990) and on the overall effectiveness of the leader (Hater & Bass, 1988; Lowe & Galen
Kroeck, 1996). In order to create an environment with increased follower satisfaction
and trust and improved work unit effectiveness, educational leaders should consider
utilizing transformational leadership. Since transformational leadership skills can be
increased through training (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996), even leaders who are not
strong transformational leaders can develop those skills.
Radiologic technology program directors are in a profession that would benefit
from the use of transformational leadership. The challenges of the evolving healthcare
environment necessitate the need for change. Transformational leadership creates an
organizational culture that is adaptive to a changing environment (Bass, 1998).
Therefore, transformational leadership could be adopted to meet the challenges that
radiologic technology program directors face. Those skills could then be used to better
meet the responsibilities of their positions. For example, transformational leaders utilize
charisma, motivation, intellectual stimulation, and consideration. The use of these skills
will create an environment where faculty are encouraged to share new ideas that can be
implemented to meet the challenges of the ever changing healthcare environment. After
faculty members have developed ideas, they will hold a shared vision for the department.
The program director can then use his or her transformational leadership skills to inspire
individuals to work toward achieving these goals. In order to increase the
transformational leadership skills of program directors, implementation of
transformational leadership training could meet this need.
Gender and Transformational Leadership
Gender is a topic that has been studied extensively in relation to leadership in
general and to transformational and transactional leadership. Since radiologic technology
45
is a profession that is predominantly female (71.8%) (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2005),
the role that gender can play in relation to transformational and transactional leadership
should be examined. Women’s and men’s leadership styles have been shown to be quite
different. Studies have shown women’s leadership styles to be more interpersonal,
participatory, democratic, and transformational than men (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt,
2001; Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Rosener, 1990). Most often men’s leadership styles have
been shown to be more autocratic, hierarchical, and task oriented or transactional than
that of women (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Eagly & Johnson, 1990). In a recent
meta-analysis conducted by Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & Van Engen (2003), women’s
leadership styles were shown to be more transformational than men’s. In addition,
women also demonstrated more contingent reward behaviors of transactional leadership
than men. Both of these behaviors have been associated with effective leadership. It is
important to note, however, is that the effect sizes of the differences between males and
females were small ranging from d=0.05 to d=0.27.
Rosener (1990) found similar findings in a study on the leadership styles of
women. Data were examined which was obtained from a survey conducted by the
International Women’s Forum. The findings from this survey demonstrate that women
have different leadership styles from men, in that men tend to be transactional leaders and
like to use their position and authority, while women are more likely to be
transformational leaders and believe their power comes from personal characteristics.
Women were then interviewed to examine their leadership styles. These women
described their style as one that incorporated participation and encouraged others to
succeed. Overall, these women did not use formal authority as men did. Jablonski
(1996) also performed a qualitative study on women in leadership, in particular on
46
women college presidents. Seven presidents and 35 faculty members from those
campuses were interviewed for the study. Just as in Rosener’s study, the presidents
described themselves as participatory leaders who liked open communication and
collaboration, which is a significant factor in transformational leadership.
Bass (1998) contends women tend to have more transformational leadership
characteristics than men. This is primarily because women tend to demonstrate more
caring attitudes than men do. In fact, Bass, Avolio, and Atwater (1996) found in three
separate samples that women were rated as more transformational than men. Women
were also reported to utilize passive leadership styles less often than men. However, the
effect sizes for the differences found were small.
Carless (1998) conducted a study to examine if the rater had any effect on
whether an individual was rated as a transformational leader. The study demonstrated
that superiors rated female managers as more transformational than male managers.
Additionally, female managers rated themselves as more transformational than male
managers. However, subordinates of the same managers did not show the same effect
and rated males and females similarly. The difference in the ratings suggests that the
perspective of the rater should be considered when examining the results of
transformational leadership measures.
However, there is opposition to this view of women as more successful leaders.
Vecchio (2002) argues that many of the studies related to gender and leadership have
flawed conclusions. In fact, he states,
In summary, it has not been demonstrated that either sex is clearly advantaged
with respect to operating as a leader. Strong claims of masculine or feminine
advantage do not have data to support them. While the behaviors of the sexes
differ stylistically, the overlap of the two groups should not be ignored in favor of
claims based on small mean differences in these distributions. (p. 655)
47
Therefore, any difference in leadership behavior based on gender should examine the
effect size of the difference in order to draw reasonable conclusions.
There are some studies that did not find any difference in transformational and
transactional leadership based on gender. Maher (1997) conducted a study involving
gender and transformational and transactional leadership that did not illustrate any
difference in transformational leadership based on gender. The author contends that
stereotypes may be responsible for differences demonstrated in other studies.
As is demonstrated by these studies, there are discrepancies as to whether gender
plays a role in leadership behavior and effectiveness. There are quantitative and
qualitative studies that support a difference between males and females. Most effect sizes
have been shown to be small for the differences found in the studies. Therefore, while
there may be some difference, how important this difference is, is not clear.
Critiques of Transformational Leadership
While there are many positives associated with transformational leadership, there
have also been some criticisms of the approach. Hunt (1999) examined the development
of transformational leadership from a historical perspective. He contends that a construct
must go through three stages in its development: introduction, evaluation, and
consolidation. According to his assessment of transformational leadership, it is currently
in phase two, evaluation. In this stage, a construct is tested and changed based on
findings of the research conducted. This would appear to be accurate due to some of the
criticism of transformational leadership. For example, Boas (1999) indicates that some of
the constructs of the theory are ambiguous and overlap. In fact, several studies
examining the factor structure of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, which is used
to measure transformational and transactional leadership have shown that some of the
48
factors overlap (Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995; Hartog & Van Muijen, 1997;Tejeda,
Scandura, & Pillai, 2001; Tepper & Percy, 1994). In response to these criticisms, the
MLQ has been revised several times since its original conception. Antonakis, Avolio,
and Sivasubramaniam (2003) have answered these criticisms by re-examining the factor
structure of the current version of the MLQ—the MLQ Form 5X-Short. The results of
their study add further support to the factor structure of the MLQ and therefore, indicate
that the instrument is valid and reliable. Additionally, Antonakis and House (2002) state,
“there are ample theoretical arguments and empirical results to support the validity of the
FRLT” (p. 27). However, there have been suggestions that researchers utilize additional
methods to confirm the findings of the surveys (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam,
2003; Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). Bass and Avolio (2001) indicate that confirmatory
factor analysis was used to establish the convergent and discriminatory validity of the
scales of the MLQ-5X. The goodness of fit index was 0.91 for the nine factor model
which is higher than the 0.90 that is recommended. Additionally, alpha reliability
coefficients for each of the factors range from 0.74 to 0.94.
Antonakis, Avolio, and Sivasubramaniam (2003) state, “any survey can at best
tell what a leader is doing, but it cannot explain why” (p. 286). One method to answer
the criticism and support the data derived from the MLQ would be to utilize an additional
source of data. In fact, Berson (1999) took this approach by conducting a mixed methods
study to evaluate the usefulness of using qualitative methods (interviews) to support and
enhance quantitative methods (MLQ). He concluded that qualitative methods provided a
better understanding of quantitative results as well as providing additional information
not provided from quantitative data.
49
In fact, Conger (1998) indicates that qualitative studies of leadership are seldom
conducted and when they are, they do not provide adequate detail in the investigation of
leadership. One shortcoming of a qualitative investigation is the large amount of data
that must be organized. However, the benefit of the rich data that is generated outweighs
this drawback. Therefore, by collecting qualitative data, a better understanding of
transformational leadership and how it relates to radiologic technology program
directors’ responsibilities can be gained. Qualitative data can help to explain why leaders
choose leadership behaviors in specific situations. Additionally, qualitative data can add
support and confirm quantitative results.
Leadership Skills of Department Chairs
Due to the constant change in higher education, leaders, including department
chairs, need to be prepared to meet the challenges of the future with strong leadership
skills. The need for strong leadership skills is a common theme in literature related to
department chairs. Lucus (1994) states, “when departmental leadership is strong, the
climate exudes excitement and enthusiasm about the work in which the department is
engaged” (p. 45). Diamond, Gardiner, and Wheeler (2002) discuss several characteristics
that a higher education leader should possess. They suggest that leaders should have a
vision, support collaboration, utilize data, and encourage professional development.
Sharing a vision for the future is essential for leadership. Without sharing a vision,
faculty, students, and any other individuals affected by a program would not be able to
understand the goals for that program, and, therefore, be unable to assist in reaching those
goals. By sharing the vision for a program, a leader can receive input from those who
will be involved with the project and, thus, gain their support in achieving the goals.
50
Another important concept that leaders should embrace is that of collaboration.
Collaboration helps faculty and students feel like a part of the program (Diamond,
Gardiner, & Wheeler, 2002). Rather than being reactive, leaders play a proactive role in
changes that are made by listening to the ideas of others. For example, when sharing the
vision the leader has for the program, the leader can utilize ideas from faculty and
students to make them a part of the process. This will create a vision that everyone can
more readily support since all parties played a role in creating the vision.
An additional skill that leaders should develop and utilize is using data to improve
a program. Data can help to identify deficiencies and illuminate strategies that might be
successful for improvement. If data is collected and not analyzed or utilized to affect
positive change for a program, then the collection of the data serves no purpose. There
are many ways that data can help a leader in identifying areas for improvement. For
example, data can be collected related to student learning outcomes and be analyzed to
identify areas within a curriculum that can be strengthened.
Finally, professional development is not only important for faculty and staff, but
also for the leader (Diamond, Gardiner, & Wheeler, 2002). Since the skills of department
chairs vary widely, there is often a need for leadership development (Filan, 1999; Smith
& Stewart, 1999). Gillett-Karam (1999) describes a training program for department
chairs that was designed to help develop the skills necessary for the position. Leadership
training was one of the key components of the program. The professional development
program is intended to better prepare chairs for their leadership role within the
department and institution. Gmelch (2004) indicates that department chairs can acquire
leadership skills through lectures and workshops, but it is also necessary for there to be
application of the skills that are learned. Being able to utilize the skills in department
51
chairs’ jobs helps to improve skills. Lucas (2000) suggests that department chairs must
be committed to their own professional and personal development in order to be most
effective and successful. By targeting their leadership skills for improvement, the leader
may learn more effective strategies for long range planning or handling conflict among
faculty. This will provide the leader with skills that can improve their effectiveness.
While these skills can be utilized by any leader, they are especially applicable to
department chairs since their leadership development is usually limited.
Other research on department chair leadership has identified some strategies
which may be effective for leading a department. For example, in a study comparing
U.S. and Australian department chairs, there was a great deal of similarity of the roles of
department chairs (Wolverton, Gmelch, Wolverton, & Sarros, 1999). In this study,
department chairs from the United States and Australia were surveyed regarding the
importance of and their effectiveness in the tasks they perform. In most regards, the two
groups of department chairs shared a similar vision of their role as department chair. One
difference between the two groups involved leadership. Chairs in the U.S. considered
getting input from others in the department as one of the leadership tasks of a department
chair, whereas, Australians viewed soliciting input as an administrative task. The authors
speculate that U.S. department chairs have a more collaborative perspective than the
Australians. The Australians may not view faculty input as important due to an
unwillingness to allow faculty to be involved in decisions affecting the department or
protecting faculty time for teaching and research endeavors. Wolverton, et al. (1999) felt
that this difference “may stimulate overall department productivity” (pp. 348-349) for
U.S. departments by utilizing a wider variety of ideas through faculty input.
52
In another study, Leftwich (2001) conducted a study of transformational
leadership of North Carolina community college department chairs. This study examined
department chairs that had been identified by their administration as “exceptional” during
a major change. A survey of the department chairs and their faculty was conducted to
determine the department chairs’ transformational leadership behaviors. The
performance or outcomes of the exceptional chairs was not studied—only their leadership
behaviors were examined. Twenty-seven department chairs participated in the study and
were found to be ethical, confident, had good relationships with faculty, and were good
implementers of change. All of these behaviors are indicative of transformational
leaders. The transactional leadership factors were not explored in this study. Although
the sample size for this study was small, the findings of this study indicate that
transformational leadership is a positive leadership style for leaders who are faced with
change. In fact, Lucas (1994) posits that transformational leadership provides an
excellent model for department chairs that can be applied to the responsibilities with
which they are faced. Transformational leadership would be useful because it is
positively related to follower satisfaction and trust, and work unit effectiveness.
Followers are inspired by transformational leaders to work harder to achieve goals. It is
important in radiologic technology programs that faculty be inspired since the changing
healthcare environment demands that programs meet the needs of the environment. This
requires change and innovation from radiologic technology programs which comes form
faculty input and implementation. Thus, this type of leadership would be useful for
department chairs in radiologic technology.
53
Department Chair Satisfaction with Leadership Skills
Since the leadership skills of department chairs are important to the effective
function of a department and positive outcomes, some researchers have examined
department chairs’ satisfaction with their leadership skills in relation to the
responsibilities of the position (Carroll & Gmelch, 1994; Lucas, 1994). Carroll and
Gmelch (1994) collected data from 539 department chairs regarding the importance of
the duties of their position and their effectiveness with each of the duties. In this study,
department chairs identified duties which they were most effective as the duties that were
most important to the department. While this study did not specifically address
satisfaction, department chairs who rate themselves as effective in relation to a duty could
be considered “satisfied” with their skills in relation to the duty as well.
Lucas (1994) developed a leadership matrix to determine the level of importance
of department chair responsibilities to the department and department chair satisfaction
with their skill development in relation to the responsibilities. The ratings are used to
identify areas for professional development of department chairs. The degree of
satisfaction is the department chair’s perception of their skills. Lucas (1994) suggests
that department chairs also have their deans and faculty perform the same evaluation of
the department chair in order to provide feedback to the department chair. This opens the
lines of communication and gives the department chair an opportunity to view others’
perspectives of their skills.
Carroll and Gmelch (1994) and Lucas (1994) used the satisfaction ratings in
different ways. Carroll and Gmelch (1994) used the ratings to determine a relationship
between department chairs’ ratings of the level of importance of responsibilities and their
effectiveness. Lucas (1994) utilized the ratings to identify areas for professional
54
development. Both of these applications are beneficial and could be used to provide a
better understanding of department chairs. Combining the approaches of Carroll and
Gmelch (1994) and Lucas (1994) would provide information regarding the relationship
between the level of importance of responsibilities in a department and the level of
satisfaction of program directors with their leadership skills as they relate to the
responsibilities, as well as demonstrate potential areas for leadership development.
Leadership in Radiologic Technology
After extensive review of the literature related to radiologic technology, two
studies were identified that related to leadership. Both studies were dissertations, but
were conducted utilizing different leadership approaches. The earliest study was limited
to one state and the later study involved a national sample. Therefore, the
generalizability of these studies to the population of program directors will vary based on
the samples utilized in each study. Details of the two studies are discussed in the
following sections.
One leadership study in radiologic technology was conducted by Kistler (1988) in
which the leadership behaviors of program directors in California were examined. The
Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) was utilized for this quantitative
study. The LBDQ does not identify leaders as transformational or transactional; rather, it
identifies the behavioral constructs of initiating structure and consideration of a leader
using 12 subscales.
This study identified a difference in how program directors perceived their
leadership behavior as compared to the ratings of their faculty (Kistler, 1988). Program
directors rated their leadership behaviors higher as measured by the LBDQ than did their
faculty. Only two types of radiologic technology programs were surveyed in the study:
55
associate and certificate. The overarching intent of the research was to identify behaviors
that could be developed further in the program directors. Recommendations were made
based on these ratings for professional development activities to improve program
directors’ leadership abilities. However, interviews with the program directors regarding
specific job skills that related to the leadership behaviors needing improvement were not
conducted. The examples provided were based on the author’s own knowledge of the
position. Interviews with the program directors may have provided additional area for
professional development. Additionally, since the study was conducted over 15 years
ago and only in California, the generalizability of the findings is very limited.
Another study of leadership in radiologic technology was conducted by Shaver
(2003). This study examined the relationship between transformational and transactional
leadership styles of program directors, faculty satisfaction, and program effectiveness.
Additionally, the willingness of faculty to put forth extra effort and the effectiveness of
the program director was studied. This study utilized the MLQ to collect the quantitative
data related to the leadership style of the program directors. The demographic data
related to the programs, faculty, and program director was collected with an instrument
designed by the researcher.
All associate degree programs (n=321) accredited by the JRCERT were included
in the study and there was a 47% response rate (n=151) (Shaver, 2003). Baccalaureate
and certificate programs were not considered for this study. Faculty were asked to assess
the leadership style of their program directors and to complete a demographic survey.
Program directors were asked to complete a demographic survey. The results indicated
that program directors were most often identified as transformational and sometimes
identified as transactional. The findings suggested that transformational, transactional,
56
and laissez-faire leadership were predictors of program director effectiveness, faculty
satisfaction, and the willingness of faculty to put forth additional effort. Age, years as
program director, highest academic degree earned, discipline of the highest degree
earned, and leadership training were the demographic variables of program directors
collected for this study. None of the demographic data collected on program directors
was correlated to the directors’ leadership style.
This study serves as an excellent entrance into the study of leadership styles of
radiologic technology program directors. Shaver (2003) suggests that additional studies
should be conducted in order to examine the leadership styles of program directors of
programs other than associate degree. Additionally, the author called for qualitative
studies as well as studies that examined the difference between faculty ratings of program
directors and program directors’ self-ratings.
While both of these studies present information related to the leadership styles of
program directors, neither utilized a sample that included all program types. Thus, the
results cannot be generalized to all programs. Additionally, both studies incorporated
quantitative measurements of program directors’ leadership styles, but did not use any
qualitative methods. Qualitative data could have supported or added to the understanding
of the quantitative findings. Kistler’s study did make suggestions for leadership
development, but since this study was published in 1988 and only examined program
directors from one state, the applicability of these findings to current program directors is
unlikely. Shaver’s study did identify a positive relationship between transformational
leadership and effectiveness, faculty satisfaction, and the willingness of faculty to put
forth extra effort. However, this study did not examine the relationship of program
directors’ responsibilities and leadership style.
57
Concept Map
This study will be guided by the conceptual map presented in Figure 2. The
conceptual map will be explained in detail by the narrative that follows. While there
have been numerous delineations of the responsibilities and duties of department chairs,
Tucker’s (1993) provides a comprehensive list that can be applied to any context. Thus,
this will be the model utilized for this study. Tucker (1993) outlines the eight categories
of responsibilities of a department chair: department governance, instruction, faculty
affairs, student affairs, external communication, budget and resources, office
management, and professional development. Each of the responsibilities has duties that
may be associated with the responsibility.
To further understand the responsibilities of department chairs, Lucas (1994)
describes a leadership matrix that examines two dimensions of each responsibility. First,
the level of importance of a responsibility to a department is determined by ranking each
responsibility on a likert scale (1=little importance to department-4=very important to
department). Second, the level of satisfaction of the radiologic technology program
director with their leadership skills as related to the responsibility is determined by a
similar ranking (1=low satisfaction with skills-4=very satisfied with skills). Since Lucas’
listing of responsibilities is less comprehensive than Tucker’s, this study will combine the
responsibilities determined by Tucker (1993) and the leadership matrix presented by
Lucas (1994) to examine program directors in radiologic technology.
The data gathered from this study will be used to demonstrate the relationship of
program directors’ leadership style to their responsibilities and level of satisfaction with
their leadership skills in relation to the responsibilities. Different leadership skills are
required for different responsibilities. Additionally, each leader has a specific leadership
58
style and a unique set of leadership skills. Therefore, leaders will rank their satisfaction
with their leadership skills as related to their responsibilities based on their leadership
style. For example, a leader whose style is transformational might rank his or her
leadership skills with department governance high, whereas a transactional leader might
rank his or her leadership skills low in relation to this responsibility.
The level of importance of the responsibilities to the department can be affected
by leadership style, program type, institution type, and gender (Lucas, 2000; Tucker,
1993). Therefore, the relationship of the level of importance of the responsibilities to
leadership style, program type, institution type, and gender will be examined.
Additionally, it is hypothesized that the level of satisfaction of radiologic technology
program directors with their leadership skills as related to the responsibilities will be
affected by leadership style, gender, years of experience as program director discipline of
highest degree, program type, and institution type. Therefore, these relationships will be
explored. The level of importance of the responsibilities can also be affected by the
department chairs’ level of satisfaction with their leadership skills in relationship to the
responsibility (Carroll & Gmelch, 1994). Thus, this relationship will be explored as well.
This information can then be used to develop the leadership skills of radiologic
technology program directors that will benefit the areas of responsibility that are most
important to their departments.
Chapter Summary
The literature presented in this chapter builds the foundation for this study. This
chapter provided a review of the literature related to department chairs and leadership.
More specifically, transformational and transactional leadership were discussed.
Additionally, studies conducted on leadership in radiologic technology were reviewed.
59
The concepts presented in the literature review were connected to form the conceptual
map which will guide this study. The next chapter will provide the details as to how the
study will be conducted.
Responsibilities
Importance of Satisfaction with

Responsibilities Leadership Skills
Leadership
Leadership Style
Style
Years of
Institution Experience
Type
Gender
Program
Type
Discipline of
Highest Degree
Gender
Program
Type
Institution
Type
Highest Degree
Completed
Figure 2: Conceptual map of program director responsibilities
60
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
This chapter outlines the methods which were utilized to conduct this mixed
methods study. The overarching research questions for the study are presented, as well as
the hypotheses that guided the quantitative portion and the research questions that were
specific to the qualitative portion. Additionally, sampling strategy, data collection and
analysis are discussed. Finally, the inference quality and transferability of the results are
addressed.
Research Design
As suggested by Avolio, Bass, and Jung (1999), studies utilizing mixed methods
approaches should be considered when studying leadership behaviors. By using more
than one method, a greater understanding of the topic can be gained. This study is
approached from the pragmatic paradigm, which posits that quantitative and qualitative
methods can be used together (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003a). Pragmatists hold the view
that the research question should guide the method employed in a study (Tashakkori &
Teddlie, 2003b). The philosophy of pragmatists can be summarized with this statement,
“study what interests and is of value to you, study it in the different ways that you deem
appropriate, and use the results in ways that can bring about positive consequences within
your value system” (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998, p. 30). Additionally, in applied fields
such as education, pragmatism lends itself to answering the complex phenomena under
study because multiple sources of data can be analyzed to answer the research questions
posed. As such, this study utilized a mixed methods approach in order to gain a better
understanding of the responsibilities of program directors in radiologic technology and
their level of satisfaction with their leadership skills as related to the responsibilities. An
61
explanatory design was employed for this study, in which qualitative data were used to
expand the understanding of the quantitative data. The first strand of the study was
quantitative, involving the collection of survey data. In order to confirm and provide a
better understanding of the responsibilities and leadership styles measured quantitatively,
qualitative methods were used to support and add depth to the quantitative data.
This study utilized Tashakkori and Teddlie’s (2003b) sequential mixed model
design. Further, the design involved qualitative and quantitative portions receiving equal
status (QUAN/QUAL). Since this project involved both quantitative and qualitative
research questions, a mixed model design is appropriate. This type of design is
characterized by the development of research questions based on the data collected in the
first portion of the study. Figure 3 represents the research design which was utilized for
this study. The first portion of this study was quantitative and identified both the
responsibilities that program directors identified as most important to their department, as
well as their level of satisfaction with their leadership skills as related to the identified
responsibilities. Additionally, the MLQ was administered in order to determine the
leadership style of the program directors. The second portion of the study was
qualitative, which was developed from the findings of the first portion of the study. The
intent of the qualitative portion of the study was to enrich the findings from the
quantitative portion of the study. The qualitative data further explored how the
leadership styles and responsibilities were used in program directors’ roles as department
chairs. Therefore, the qualitative portion of the study answered questions involving the
context of the program director’s role. Specifically, is leadership style related to the type
of program? Why are certain responsibilities more important to some programs than
others? What opportunities for leadership development have the program directors had?
62
And, which have been most helpful? Other questions were formulated from the results of
the quantitative data. The inferences for the study were based on both sources of data.
Interview questions
developed a priori
Leadership Matrix and Additional interview

MLQ administered questions developed
Quantitative data Interviews conducted

analyzed
Inferences drawn Inferences drawn

from quantitative from qualitative data
data
Meta-inferences drawn from

all data sources
Figure 3: Research design

Note. Adapted from Tashaakkori and Teddlie, 2003, p. 688.
Research Questions
This study examined the responsibilities and leadership behaviors of program
directors of radiologic technology programs and was guided by eight overarching
research questions:
63
Research Question 1: Which responsibilities are perceived as most important to
radiologic technology program directors?
Research Question 2: With which of their leadership skills are radiologic
technology program directors least satisfied?
Research Question 3: How well does leadership style explain program directors’
perceived level of importance of their responsibilities?
idealized influence (attributed) (transformational factors) explain program
Research Question 3b: How well do contingent reward, active
management by exception, and passive management by exception
(transactional factors) explain program directors’ perceived level of
Research Question 4: How well do leadership style, discipline of highest degree,
program type, and years of experience as a program director explain the level of
satisfaction with program directors’ leadership skills as related to their
responsibilities?
idealized influence (attributed) (transformational factors) explain the level
responsibilities?
64
Research Question 4b: How well do contingent reward, management by
exception (active), and management by exception (passive) (transactional
factors) explain the level of satisfaction with program directors’ leadership
skills as related to their responsibilities?
Research Question 5: Does the level of importance of the responsibilities vary
based on gender, institution type (hospital, 2 year, 4 year, or vocational/technical),
or due to an interaction between institution type and gender?
Research Question 6: Does the level of satisfaction with program directors’
leadership skills as related to their responsibilities vary based on gender, highest
degree completed (baccalaureate, masters, or PhD, EdD), or due to an interaction
between highest degree completed and gender?
Research Question 7: How does program type influence the leadership skills
utilized by radiologic technology program directors?
Research Question 8: Why have the responsibilities that have been identified as
very important to the department received those rankings?
Research questions one and two were answered by analyzing the frequency of responses
of program directors. Additionally, data from the interviews was utilized to provide a
better understanding of the rankings by program directors. Research questions three and
four utilized multiple regression to answer the questions. Multiple regression was used to
explain the effects of the independent variables of leadership style, years of experience,
and discipline of highest degree and on the dependent variables of importance of
leadership responsibilities and satisfaction with leadership skills. Research questions five
and six were answered by utilizing a two-way ANOVA to examine if gender and
institution type affected the level of importance of the responsibilities and the level of
65
satisfaction of program directors with their leadership skills. The quantitative data were
not intended to provide information on how program directors utilized leadership
behaviors in their roles or why a responsibility was important to a department. Therefore,
the qualitative portion of this study answered research questions seven and eight to
further explore the particular situations that program directors must address in their
leadership position that required the use of their leadership skills and what current
conditions affected the level of importance of their responsibilities.
Sampling
This study utilized probability and purposeful sampling strategies. Kemper,
Stringfield, and Teddlie (2003) suggest that mixed methods studies necessitate the use of
multiple sampling strategies to strengthen inference quality and inference transferability.
The population for this study was program directors of radiologic technology programs in
the United States and Puerto Rico accredited by the JRCERT. A national sample of the
accessible population of program directors was utilized. Gall, Borg, and Gall (1996)
define accessible population as “all the members of a set of people, events, or objects
who feasibly can be included in the researcher’s sample” (p. 753). Therefore, for this
study, the accessible population was the entire population (n=591).
At the start of the study there were 591 programs accredited by the JRCERT, of
which there were 28 baccalaureate (4.7%), 335 associate degree (56.7%), and 228
certificate (38.6%). A list of programs and program directors was obtained from the
JRCERT and all were included in the study, excluding the program of the researcher.
The intent of surveying the entire population was to obtain an adequate response rate and
to help insure that the results could be generalized. By examining the JRCERT listing of
program directors, the gender of the program directors was determined to be
66
approximately 65% female and 35% male. The program directors had a variety of
degrees, including 225 baccalaureate (38%), 298 masters (51%), 37 doctorate (6%), and
31 with no degree or an associate degree (5%) (JRCERT, 2005).
Stratified purposeful sampling was utilized to collect the qualitative data. This
sampling strategy is designed “to capture major variations rather than to identify a
common core, although the latter may also emerge in the analysis” (Patton, 2002, p. 240).
In this case, the subgroups were transformational and transactional leaders, and the intent
was to identify differences between transformational and transactional leaders. After the
quantitative data were analyzed, program directors were selected who were identified as
primarily transformational or transactional leaders as determined by the scores obtained
from the MLQ. Two program directors identified as transformational leaders and two
identified as transactional leaders were interviewed from each program type, with the
exception of associate degree program transformational program directors. Due to a late
response from an associate degree transformational program director, three were
surveyed in this category. This provided a total of 13 program directors who were
interviewed (see Table 1).
Table 1: Number of program directors interviewed
Program Type Transformational Transactional Total
Baccalaureate 2 2 4
Associate 3 2 5
Certificate 2 2 4
Total 7 6 13
67
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
Bass (1995) began to study transformational leadership over 20 years ago. After
realizing that the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire did not demonstrate
transformational or transactional leadership behaviors, he decided to develop his own
instrument. In 1990, Bass developed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, which
has undergone several revisions to improve its factor structure. The MLQ is the most
widely used instrument to measure transformational leadership (Tejeda, Scandura, &
Pillai, 2001).
The current form of the MLQ—the MLQ Form 5x-Short measures
transformational leadership, transactional leadership, passive avoidant leadership and
outcomes of leadership utilizing twelve subscales (Mindgarden, 2003). The instrument
consists of 45 items designed to measure the constructs of transformational and
transactional leadership. For transformational leadership, the MLQ has five subscales:
idealized influence (attributed), idealized influence (behavior), inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration. In relation to transactional
leadership, the MLQ has three subscales: contingent reward, management by exception
(active), and management by exception (passive). The MLQ also has a sub-scale to
measure laissez-faire leadership. Finally, the MLQ has three subscales to measure
outcomes of leadership: extra effort, effectiveness, and satisfaction. Responses to the
items range on a Likert scale from 0 corresponding to “not at all” to 4 corresponding to
“frequently, if not always”. Responses were summed for each of the subscales and a
mean was determined for each. Bass and Avolio (1999) provide descriptions and ideal
ratings for each of the transformational and transactional subscales measured by the MLQ
(see Table 2).
68
Table 2: Descriptions and ideal ratings for MLQ subscales
Leadership Subscale Ideal MLQ Rating
Individualized consideration-leader shows empathy for followers > 3.0

that is individualized based on the needs of the follower
Intellectual stimulation-leader encourages followers to be creative > 3.0

and examine new perspectives in relation to a problem
Inspirational motivation-leader inspires and motivates followers > 3.0

to high levels of achievement
Idealized influence (attributed)-impact of how a leader is > 3.0

perceived
Idealized influence (behavior)-behaviors of a leader that serve as > 3.0

a model to followers
Contingent reward-leader provides positive or negative incentives > 2.0

for performance
Management by exception (active)-leader monitors followers for < 1.5

errors
Management by exception (passive)-leader reacts to a problem < 1.0

after it occurs
Laissez-faire-leader takes no action and provides no guidance < 1.0

Note: Adapted from Bass and Avolio, 1999, p. 29.
Validity and Reliability of the MLQ
There has been some debate as to whether the constructs represented in the
questionnaire may still need some refinement. According to Tejeda, Scandura, and Pillai
(2001), transformational leadership is a concept that is still being evaluated and may need
to evolve more as a theory. Specifically, the authors contend that there is some overlap in
the constructs measured by the MLQ. They suggest some revisions to the instrument in
order to improve its psychometric properties.
69
There are other studies that support the factors utilized by the MLQ. Avolio,
Bass, and Jung (1999) examined studies utilizing the MLQ to determine which factor
structure was the best fit for the MLQ. The study supported the use of six factors, which
include: charisma/inspirational, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration,
contingent reward, active management by exception, and passive avoidant leadership.
Charisma/inspirational, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration are
transformational leadership constructs. Contingent reward and active management by
exception are transactional leadership constructs and passive avoidant leadership is non-
leadership. A suggestion was made for studies to use mixed methods in order to confirm
the findings of studies utilizing the MLQ. This may provide more insight into
professional development needs of leaders.
The most recent evaluation of the factor structure of the MLQ supports the current
structure (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003). The results of this study
indicate that the instrument is valid and reliable. Additionally, Bass and Avolio (2000)
indicate that confirmatory factor analysis was used to establish the convergent and
discriminatory validity of the scales of the MLQ-5X. The goodness of fit index was 0.91
for the nine factor model, which is higher than the 0.90 that is recommended. Finally,
alpha reliability coefficients for each of the factors ranged from 0.74 to 0.94. This
reliability was not based on any self ratings, but rather on ratings from others. Nunnally
(1978) indicates that a reliability of 0.70 or higher is adequate for early stages of research
on a test and anything above 0.80 is usually unnecessary. Reliability of the MLQ was
also determined for this study.
70
Leadership Matrix
The leadership matrix instrument developed for this study was adapted from
Lucas’ (1994) leadership matrix and Tucker’s (1993) listing of program chair
responsibilities and duties associated with those responsibilities. The first portion of the
instrument collected data related to the demographic variables involved in the study:
gender, program type, institution type, highest degree obtained and discipline of the
degree, and years of experience as a program director. The second portion of the
instrument collected data related to the responsibilities of program directors. Each
responsibility was rated on two dimensions: level of importance to the department and
the program director’s satisfaction with their leadership skills as related to the
responsibility. The level of importance of the responsibility to the department was rated
on a scale of 1-4, with one corresponding to low importance to the department and four
corresponding to very important to the department. Additionally, the program director’s
satisfaction with their leadership skills as related to the responsibilities will be rated on a
scale of 1-4, with one corresponding to low satisfaction and four corresponding to very
satisfied. Finally, the instrument contained a section for comments from program
directors.
Data Collection
After approval was received from the Institutional Review Board, and the list of
program directors for the sample was obtained from the JRCERT, data collection
proceeded. Program directors were contacted with a letter describing the study (see
Appendix A). The introductory letter was designed utilizing methods suggested by Gall,
Borg, and Gall (1996) to increase response rate. Accordingly, the letter outlines the
purpose of the study, a time frame for returning surveys, assurance of confidentiality, and
71
information on informed consent. Also included in this package was a consent form,
detailed instructions for completion of the instruments, the MLQ, a leadership matrix for
the program director and a return postage envelope for return of the completed
instruments (see Appendixes B, C, and D). A follow-up postcard was sent one week after
the initial package was sent in order to improve the response rate (see Appendix E).
These procedures yielded a 48.1% response rate (n=284).
The quantitative data were collected from two instruments, specifically, the MLQ
and the leadership matrix. Johnson and Turner (2003) describe several strengths of using
tests to provide quantitative data. Some of these were applicable to this study, including:
having a high validity and allowing for simplified data analysis.
The quantitative data were collected first, utilizing the MLQ and leadership
matrix. The MLQ has been used in numerous research studies to determine leadership
style and is the primary instrument that has been used to measure transformational
leadership (see Appendix C for examples of questions). While instruments have been
utilized to measure transformational leadership, none have the extensive amounts of
published literature regarding their effectiveness as the MLQ. The quantitative data were
collected from each program director. The program directors’ responses were a self-
report of their perceptions of their leadership style. While this self-report of program
directors’ leadership styles will be a limitation in the information that was collected, the
purpose of the data gathered from the MLQ is to examine how leadership style affects
how program directors rate the level of importance of the responsibilities and the level of
satisfaction with their leadership skills. Bass and Avolio (1999) suggest that a minimum
of six individuals rate the leader for optimal results. Most radiologic technology
programs have small faculties, and, in fact, Shaver (2003) listed this as a limitation in his
72
study. Therefore, due to the small number of faculty in radiologic technology programs,
it was determined that a self-report should provide adequate information on how to assess
the relationship of leadership style to the ratings for the responsibilities. In addition,
program directors were asked to complete a leadership matrix (see Appendix D). The
quantitative data collected was used to address the research questions and to develop
questions to be examined in the qualitative phase of the study.
After collection and preliminary analysis of the quantitative data, the stratified
purposeful sample was selected. The qualitative data consisted of interviews conducted
after the compilation of the quantitative data. Johnson and Turner (2003) describe
strengths and weaknesses of interviews. The strengths that apply to this study are:
providing in depth information, allowing for probing, and improving the confirmation of
the quantitative data. The weaknesses that were able to be addressed in this study are: the
expense of in-person interviews and a perceived lack of anonymity by respondents.
Interviews were conducted by telephone to eliminate the expense of in-person interviews
and respondents were assured of their anonymity prior to beginning the interview.
Participants were contacted via email and asked to participate in the interviews.
Those participants who responded positively to this request were then scheduled for
interviews. Interviews were conducted via the telephone, due to geographic distance
between the researcher and the interviewees. Interviews lasted approximately 30 to 45
minutes. Interview questions were determined prior to the interview (see Appendix F for
examples of questions). Some questions were developed a priori and others were
determined after initial analysis of the quantitative data. Preliminary analysis of the
quantitative data identified the responsibilities that program directors rated as most and
least important to their departments. Questions were developed to confirm the ratings
73
and to provide a better understanding of why program directors chose those ratings.
Additionally, questions were developed to determine which transformational or
transactional leadership behaviors were most and least important in their role as program
director. Finally, questions were developed to determine how program directors
preferred to develop and improve their leadership skills. After the interview questions
were developed, a pilot was conducted with a former program director in order to
determine if any changes were needed in the interview protocol. After the pilot, minor
changes were made to some of the questions to clarify the intent of the questions. Each
of the interviews was recorded and fully transcribed.
Interviews allowed for exploring the results of the quantitative data in more depth.
A standardized open ended interview approach was used for this study. As such, the
questions were determined prior to the interview. Patton (2002) indicates this method
allows for the data to be organized for easier analysis. Additionally, the standardized
format increases the ease of comparison, since participants answer the same questions.
While this format facilitates data analysis, it limits the flexibility of the questions that can
be asked by the interviewer.
Data Analysis
The data collected for the study was analyzed using several different techniques.
Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie (2003) suggest that two decisions must be made in relation to
the analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data: the dominance of the approaches
employed and how the different data analyses will inform each other. For this study, the
quantitative and qualitative data had equal dominance. Therefore, the data analysis
approaches for the two types of data were also equal. Since the quantitative data were
collected first, it was used to inform the qualitative portion of the study. As mentioned
74
previously, the preliminary analysis of the quantitative data were used to help develop the
questions for the qualitative portion of the study. Additionally, after both sets of data had
been collected, the results were compared to confirm or disconfirm inferences from each
approach.
All quantitative data were analyzed utilizing SPSS 13.0 computer software. The
demographic data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and was used to describe the
sample and to answer the research questions of the study. All of the quantitative data
were analyzed utilizing a significance level of 0.05.
Research question one was answered by determining the frequency and mean of
the rankings for each responsibility. Research question two was answered by
determining the frequency and mean of the rankings of program directors in relation to
their leadership skills in relation to the responsibilities. This data were utilized to
determine which responsibilities were most important to departments and with which
leadership skills program directors were least satisfied with. Additionally, interview
questions which related to these questions were analyzed to provide a better
understanding of program director responses. Program directors were asked if they
agreed with the rankings of the responsibilities, and why or why not. This provided more
depth to the quantitative data. Also, program directors were asked about their satisfaction
with their leadership skills during interviews. Again, this data provided additional
information regarding their satisfaction.
Research questions three and four were answered by conducting a multiple
regression analysis. The dependent and independent variables that were involved in this
analysis are outlined in Tables 3 and 4. There are several assumptions associated with
multiple regression that were checked. First, the variables were examined for normality.
75
Second, the linear relationship between the variables was assessed utilizing a scatter plot.
Additionally, the scatter plots were used to determine if the data met the assumption of
homoscedasticity. Variables that did not meet the assumption of normality were
transformed to provide a variable that was more normally distributed for the analysis.
Kirk (1995) defines transformation as “any systematic alternations of a set of scores
whereby certain characteristics of the set are changed and other characteristics remain
unchanged” (p. 103). Howell (1997) indicates that transforming data is an appropriate
method utilized to create a normally distributed variable. Specifically, for this analysis,
non-normal variables were squared to obtain a distribution that was most normally
distributed.
To answer research question three, a regression analysis was performed with
importance of the responsibility as the dependent variable and gender, program type,
institution type, and leadership style (transformational and transactional) as the
independent variables. To answer research question four, a separate regression analysis
was conducted with satisfaction with leadership skills as the dependent variable and
program type, discipline of highest degree, years of experience, and leadership style
(transformational and transactional) as the independent variables. Since several of the
variables that were utilized are categorical variables, a coding scheme was needed.
Effect coding was implemented for the independent variables of program type and
discipline of highest degree. For effect coding, the numbers used are 1, 0, and -1
(Pedhazur, 1997). A vector was generated for each group minus one. Thus, for a
variable with four groups, three vectors were created. In each vector, members of one
group were assigned ones and all members of other groups were assigned zeros, with the
exception of the final group, which was assigned -1. The effect codes which were used
76
for the independent variables of program type and discipline of highest degree are
presented in Tables 5 and 6. After coding was completed, the data were used to conduct
the regression analyses. The R2, adjusted R2, observed F value, and the standardized
regression coefficients were examined for each regression analysis conducted.
Table 3: Dependent variables and descriptions for research questions three and four
Variable Description Range

Importance of Degree to which the program 1 (not important to the
responsibility director views a responsibility as department) to 4 (very
important to the department important to the department)
Satisfaction with Degree to which the program 1 (low satisfaction with

leadership skills director is satisfied with their skills) to 4 (very satisfied
leadership skills as related to the with skills)
responsibility
Table 4: Independent variables and descriptions for research questions three and four
Variable Description Range/Categories

Program type Type of degree/certificate granted Certificate, associate degree,
by the radiologic technology baccalaureate
program upon completion
Discipline of Academic discipline of the highest Radiologic technology,

highest degree degree obtained by the program education, business, other
director
Years of Number of years the program 0-infinity

experience director has served in that position
Leadership style- Mean of the 5 subscales of 0-4

Transformational transformational leadership on the
leadership MLQ
Leadership style- Mean of the 3 subscales of 0-4

Transactional transactional leadership on the
leadership MLQ
77
Table 5: Effect codes for program type
Group B1 B2
Certificate 1 0
Associate degree 0 1
Baccalaureate degree -1 -1
Table 6: Effect codes for discipline of highest degree
Group C1 C2 C3
Radiologic Technology 1 0 0
Education 0 1 0
Business 0 0 1
Other -1 -1 -1
Research questions five and six were analyzed utilizing a two-way ANOVA. The
dependent variables were importance of the responsibility and satisfaction with
leadership skills and the independent variables were gender and institution type. The
dependent and independent variables utilized to answer research questions five and six
are outlined in Table 7. The assumptions associated with a two-way ANOVA were also
checked. First, the variables were examined to assure that there was a normal distribution
for each of the cells of the two-way ANOVA. Second, homogeneity of variance was
examined. For this study, there were unequal sample sizes for the cells in the two-way
ANOVA. Howell (1997) suggests to address this issue by using the Type III sum of
squares for analysis, which considers equally weighted means. Thus, this method was
used for this study. Finally, post hoc tests were conducted when significant differences
were identified. Tukey’s pair-wise comparisons were used to find differences between
each of the groups. The codes for the independent variables used for the two-way
78
ANOVA are demonstrated in Tables 8 and 9. Finally, results from the quantitative
analysis were used to develop questions for the qualitative portion of the study.
Table 7: Dependent and independent variable descriptions for research questions five and
six
Variable Description Range

Importance of Degree to which the program 1 (not important to the
responsibility director views a responsibility as department) to 4 (very
important to the department important to the department)
Satisfaction with Degree to which the program 1 (low satisfaction with

leadership skills director is satisfied with their skills) to 4 (very satisfied
leadership skills as related to the with skills)
responsibility
Gender Gender of the program director Male, female
Institution type Setting for the radiologic Hospital/medical center, 2

technology program year community college, 4
year college/university,
vocational/technical institute,
other
Table 8: Codes for gender
Group Code
Male 0
Female 1
Table 9: Codes for institution type
Group Code
Hospital/medical center 1
2 year community college 2
4 year college/university 3
Vocational/technical institute 4
Other 5
79
After the qualitative data had been fully transcribed, the interviews were analyzed
using inductive analysis. N6 software was utilized to assist with organizing and coding
the qualitative data. Themes and patterns were developed based on each participant’s
responses to the questions posed by the researcher. Additionally, these were quantitized
to determine the frequency of specific responses. Quantitizing data involves
transforming qualitative data into numeric data for statistical analysis (Tashakkori &
Teddlie, 2003a). This quantitized data were compared with the quantitative data. The
two data sources were triangulated to determine consistency of the results of the two
methods. The qualitative data complemented the quantitative data and provided more
depth to the analysis and the inferences drawn from the study. Avolio, Bass, and Jung
(1999) called for multiple methods to be used in leadership research in order to confirm
the findings of survey data. This study utilized a sequential QUAN/QUAL design in
order to do just that.
Inference Quality
The inference quality of the study was determined by utilizing techniques to
assure the design quality and interpretive rigor of the study. First, the sampling method
employed helped to assure the quality of the design. The sample of the accessible
population of program directors assured that selection of the participants was not biased.
This provided adequate quantitative data for analysis. Second, the data collected were
examined to assure that the statistical assumptions are not violated. Data were checked
for normality, linearity, homoscedasticity, and homogeneity of variance to help assure
statistical rigor. In cases where assumptions were violated, appropriate measures were
taken to address these issues. The level of significance for this study was set at 0.05.
After the initial survey was mailed, a follow-up postcard was mailed to help assure an
80
adequate response rate. An attempt to decrease attrition was made by conducting the
interviews with program directors in a short period of time after quantitative data
collection and preliminary analysis. Since these cases were selected based on specific
criteria, the information provided was rich and aided in understanding the leadership
behaviors of program directors. Thus, the 13 interviews were intended to allow for a
thorough analysis of responses. In addition, the triangulation of the quantitative and
qualitative data assured that multiple perspectives were analyzed and provided greater
depth to the study. Due to the large number of studies utilizing the MLQ, comparisons to
prior studies further confirmed the results of this study.
Inference Transferability
The inference transferability was determined using several techniques as well.
First, the population transferability was assured by utilizing a sample of the accessible
population of all program directors in JRCERT accredited programs in the United States
and Puerto Rico. By sampling each type of program, the data can be generalized to the
entire population. A full description of the methods employed helps to assure that other
researchers can replicate the study, therefore adding to the generalizability (Gall, Borg, &
Gall, 1996). By selecting interview participants based on their leadership behavior
(transformational and transactional leadership), the results of the study are transferable to
the population. Finally, analyzing the data across the cases demonstrates that the
conclusions can be transferred at least between the cases under study (Gall, Borg, & Gall,
1996). Additionally, thick description was utilized in describing the qualitative
responses. All interviews were fully transcribed to assure that responses of the
participants were not distorted. Finally, a reflexive journal was kept to help understand
the researcher’s perspective as well as that of the study participants (Patton, 2002). The
81
journal was used to record the impressions of the researcher in regard to the interviewees
and their responses. This was used to help identify recurring themes or areas for
additional exploration. Recording these impressions helped to add to the thick
description of the qualitative data.
Chapter Summary
This chapter provided the details as to how this study was conducted. A
description of the research design and research questions that guided the study was
provided. Additionally, data collection and analysis techniques were discussed. Finally,
techniques for inference quality and inference transferability were presented. In the next
chapter, the results from the data collection will be presented.
82
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to identify the responsibilities that program
directors indicated as most important to their departments and the satisfaction of
radiologic technology program directors with their current leadership skills as related to
the responsibilities. Additionally, the leadership styles of program directors were
identified. The level of importance of each responsibility to the department helped to
identify which leadership skills should be developed. This chapter will present the data
which was collected utilizing the MLQ, Leadership Matrix, and interviews with program
directors. The quantitative data were analyzed utilizing SPSS version 13.0 software and
the qualitative data were analyzed using N6 software.
Participants
Description of Radiologic Technology Program Directors
Of the 590 program directors that were sent surveys, 284 responded for a 48%
response rate. Gall, Borg, and Gall (1996) indicate that this is an adequate response rate
with statistical power at the 0.7 level and a medium effect size for the statistical tests
which were conducted. The descriptive characteristics of the participants are presented in
Table 10. The majority of the participants were female (n=195, 69%) which is similar to
the population (65% female). The mean years of experience of the program directors was
12.47 (SD=9.60) and ranged from 0 to 39 years. Additionally, most program directors
held a masters degree (n=163, 58%), which is comparable to the population (51%). The
most common discipline for the highest degree obtained was education (n=133, 47%).
83
Table 10: Descriptive characteristics of radiologic technology program directors (N=284)
Variable Number Percent
Gender
Male 89 31
Female 195 69
Highest degree completed
Associate 5 2
Baccalaureate 82 29
Masters 163 58
PhD or EdD 29 10
Other: Certificate, Education specialist 4 1
Discipline of highest degree
Radiologic Technology 50 18
Education 133 47
Business 31 11
Other: Applied Sciences, Nursing, English, Psychology, 70 25

Interdisciplinary Studies, Health Studies, Health Administration,
Organizational Management, Human Resources Management,
Health Science, Vocational Education, Management, General
Studies, Biology, Counseling, Physics, Health Education, Health
Arts, Political Science, Anthropology, Medical Science, Health
Services Management, Leadership, Library and Information
Science, Computer Applications, Kinesiology, Environmental
Health, Educational Management, Continuing Education, Anatomy
Note: Total n may vary due to incomplete responses.
84
Description of Radiologic Technology Programs
The program directors responding to the survey provided descriptive information
regarding their respective programs. Table 11 identifies the descriptive characteristics of
the radiologic technology programs. The majority of the programs were associate degree
programs (n=174, 62%), which is similar to population (56.7%). Additionally, most
programs were situated within 2-year community colleges (n=124, 44%).
Table 11: Descriptive characteristics of radiologic technology programs
Variable Number Percent
(N=284)
Program type
Certificate 95 34
Associate 174 62
Baccalaureate 12 4
Institution type
Hospital/medical center 85 30
2 year community college 124 44
4 year college/university 44 16
Vocational/technical institute 18 6
Other 8 3
Note: Total n may vary due to incomplete responses.
Description of Interview Participants
Of the 284 program directors who responded to the survey instruments, thirteen
participated in telephone interviews. The descriptive characteristics of the participants
85
are presented in Table 12. Seven of the participants were identified as transformational
and six were transactional based on their responses to the MLQ. Additionally, most
participants were female (n=7, 54%).
Table 12: Descriptive characteristics of interview participants
Transformational Transactional Total
Gender Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Male 2 29 4 67 6 46
Female 5 71 2 33 7 54
Findings
The findings for this study are reported in relation to the research questions posed.
The data were analyzed utilizing SPSS 13.0 for the quantitative data and N6 for the
qualitative data. A significance level of 0.05 was used for all statistical procedures.
Research Question 1
Which responsibilities are perceived as most important to radiologic technology
program directors?
Program directors were asked to rate the level of importance of each of the
responsibilities within their department on a Likert scale (1=low importance to 4=high
importance). The frequency and mean of the rankings for each of the responsibilities
were used to determine which responsibilities were most important to radiologic
technology program directors. Tables 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 provide the
frequency of responses, percentage and cumulative percentage of ratings for each of the
responsibilities. For this study a rating of one or two was considered to indicate a
responsibility of low importance and a rating of three or four to specify a responsibility of
86
high importance to the department. Budget and resources received the highest percentage
of low rankings with 24.4% of participants selecting a rating of one or two. Office
management had similar rankings with 24.2% of participants selecting a one or two
rating. Instruction received the fewest number of low ratings with only 1.4% of
participants selecting a low rating.
Table 21 provides the means and standard deviations of the ratings for the
importance of the responsibilities to the programs. The means ranged from 3.86 to 3.06;
therefore, all of the responsibilities can be considered important to the program.
Instruction, department governance, and student affairs had the highest means of 3.86,
3.77, and 3.69 respectively; whereas budget and resources and office management were
rated the lowest with each of these responsibilities having a mean of 3.06.
Table 13: Frequency of responses for importance of instruction
Ranking Frequency (n=281) Percent Cumulative Percent
1 0 0 0
2 4 1.4 1.4
3 32 11.4 12.8
4 245 87.2 100
Table 14: Frequency of responses for importance of department governance
1 1 0.4 0.4
2 8 2.8 3.2
3 47 16.7 19.9
4 225 80.1 100
87
Table 15: Frequency of responses for importance of student affairs
1 0 0 0
2 10 3.6 3.6
3 66 23.6 27.2
4 204 72.8 100
Table 16: Frequency of responses for importance of external communication
1 2 .7 .7
2 17 6 6.7
3 94 33.5 40.2
4 168 59.8 100
Table 17: Frequency of responses for importance of faculty affairs
1 9 3.2 3.2
2 33 11.7 14.9
3 96 34.2 49.1
4 143 50.9 100
88
Table 18: Frequency of responses for importance of professional development
1 12 4.3 4.3
2 41 14.6 18.9
3 104 37 55.9
4 124 44.1 100
Table 19: Frequency of responses for importance of budget and resources
Ranking Frequency (n=) Percent Cumulative Percent
1 15 5.4 5.4
2 53 19 24.4
3 111 39.8 64.2
4 100 35.8 100
Table 20: Frequency of responses for importance of office management
1 14 5 5
2 54 19.2 24.2
3 114 40.6 64.8
4 99 35.2 100
89
Table 21: Means and standard deviations for importance of responsibilities
Responsibility M SD n
Instruction 3.86 .389 281
Department governance 3.77 .509 281
Student affairs 3.69 .534 280
External communication 3.52 .644 281
Faculty affairs 3.33 .806 281
Professional development 3.21 .846 281
Budget and resources 3.06 .873 279
Office management 3.06 .862 281
Additionally, several program directors added comments to their Leadership
Matrix survey. Twenty program directors commented on teaching classes. These
program directors stressed that they had a major responsibility in terms of teaching
classes. Eleven program directors indicated that committees required a lot of their time.
Also, four program directors responded that, in addition to their responsibilities as a
radiologic technology program director, they were over other programs. Those program
directors from hospital-based programs seemed to have the widest variety of
responsibilities. For example, four stated they were responsible for department in-
services, two served with their credit unions, two had financial aid duties, and two
performed in some capacity as a department manager within the hospital radiology
department.
During the telephone interviews, program directors were asked if they agreed that
instruction should be rated as most important. Forty-six percent of program directors
90
(n=6) agreed that instruction was the most important responsibility in their department.
However, 54% of program directors disagreed (n=7) and felt it was not the most
important.
One program director who agreed that instruction was the most important
responsibility said it this way, “…I feel it directly affects the other pieces of the position
and that’s recruitment, retention, and success on board scores, which then lead to
successful employment.” Success of the students seemed to be one of the important
reasons why program directors felt instruction was important to their program. Another
program director emphasized this by stating,
Well, to me, the students are my number one priority. If you do not have good
data from the students going through your educational program as far as the pass
rates on the registry etcetera; that they get the information from the instruction
time—I mean your program is not worth too much at all.
Some of those program directors that disagreed with the ranking of instruction as
most important to the program felt that their job was complex and instruction was only
one component of their responsibilities. One program director said it this way,
Our jobs are getting so complicated that we really don’t have time anymore to
spend a major portion of our time with instruction especially at an associate
degree college programs or baccalaureate degree college programs, I think our
primary responsibility is program quality maintenance and keeping the program
up with rapidly moving technology.
Several program directors stressed that program governance was what was most
important to their department. A program director from a certificate program stated this
about instruction,
I think as program directors, program governance is probably the most important,

and again, I understand where some program directors are coming from, in small
programs, then they may shoulder the burden of didactic instruction, but I think in
order for a program to really be progressive, and strategic in nature, the program
director has to take the lead and govern the program and drive the strategic plan.
91
Basically, program directors seemed to approach instruction from two basic stances.
Instruction was either the critical component that led to positive student outcomes or it
was seen as one aspect of their responsibilities.
Program directors were also asked if they agreed with the ranking of budget and
resources as one of the least important of their responsibilities. Thirty-eight percent of
program directors (n=5) agreed that budget and resources was the least important of their
responsibilities, but 62% disagreed (n=8). Those program directors who agreed with the
ranking of budget and resources as their least important responsibility indicated that they
had little control over the budget. Program directors stated that due to the structure of
their institution, they had little input into the budget process. One program director
stated,
I think most of us program directors, our immediate supervisors handle that, and
in some cases we don’t even have a lot of good input into that area. So it just
depends on what the organizational structure is and who we report too.
Program directors who disagreed with the ranking of budget and resources as least
important saw this responsibility as critical to the successful functioning of their
department. They felt that their skills in handling the budget helped them to obtain the
resources that were necessary for maintaining and improving their departments. One
program director stated,
…the budget development and allocation of those funds is critical to our success
and in fact much of our success has been made possible by my ability to lobby for
additional budgetary allocations, to hire new faculty, to add on new programs, to
purchase new equipment and so forth.
Several also emphasized that advances in technology demanded that budget and
resources be one of their important responsibilities. A program director from a
92
baccalaureate program summed it up like this, “You know, we can’t be twenty years
behind in technology and attempting to teach the students.”
Research Question 2
With which of their leadership skills are radiologic technology program directors
least satisfied?
Program directors were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with their
leadership skills as related to each of the responsibilities on a Likert scale (1=low
satisfaction with skills to 4=high satisfaction with skills). The frequency and mean of the
rankings in regards to program directors’ satisfaction with their skills in relation to the
responsibilities were used to determine with which skills program directors were least
satisfied. Tables 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 provide the frequency of responses,
percentage and cumulative percentage of ratings of program directors’ satisfaction with
their skills in relation to the responsibilities. For this study a rating of one or two was
considered to indicate low satisfaction with skills and a rating of three or four to specify
high satisfaction with skills. Budget and resources received the highest percentage of low
satisfaction ratings with 27.8% of participants selecting a rating of one or two.
Professional development had the second highest percentage of low satisfaction ratings
with 14.2% of program directors selecting a one or two rating. Instruction received the
fewest number of low satisfaction ratings with only 2.1% of participants selecting a low
rating.
Table 30 provides the means and standard deviations of the ratings for the level of
satisfaction with leadership skills as related to the responsibilities. The means ranged
from 3.72 to 2.93. Instruction, student affairs, and department governance had the
93
highest means of 3.72, 3.59, and 3.43 respectively. Budget and resources was rated with
the lowest satisfaction with leadership skills having a mean of 2.93.
Table 22: Frequency of responses for satisfaction of skills for instruction
1 0 0 0
2 6 2.1 2.1
3 67 23.8 25.9
4 209 74.1 100
Table 23: Frequency of responses for satisfaction of skills for student affairs
1 1 0.4 .4
2 14 5 5.4
3 83 29.7 35.1
4 181 64.9 100
Table 24: Frequency of responses for satisfaction of skills for department governance
1 2 .7 .7
2 18 6.5 7.2
3 118 42.3 49.5
4 141 50.5 100
94
Table 25: Frequency of responses for satisfaction of skills for external communication
1 0 0 0
2 29 10.2 10.2
3 123 43.5 53.7
4 131 46.3 100
Table 26: Frequency of responses for satisfaction of skills for office management
1 2 0.7 0.7
2 37 13.2 13.9
3 121 43.1 56.9
4 121 43.1 100
Table 27: Frequency of responses for satisfaction of skills for professional development
1 2 0.7 0.7
2 38 13.5 14.2
3 124 44.1 58.4
4 117 41.6 100
95
Table 28: Frequency of responses for satisfaction of skills for faculty affairs
1 5 1.8 1.8
2 29 10.4 12.2
3 132 47.1 59.3
4 114 40.7 100
Table 29: Frequency of responses for satisfaction of skills for budget and resources
1 7 2.5 2.5
2 71 25.3 27.8
3 139 49.5 77.2
4 64 22.8 100
Table 30: Means and standard deviations for satisfaction with skills
Responsibility M SD n
Instruction 3.72 .495 282
Student affairs 3.59 .604 279
Department governance 3.43 .647 279
External communication 3.36 .661 283
Office management 3.28 .715 281
Professional development 3.27 .715 281
Faculty affairs 3.27 .716 281
Budget and resources 2.93 .759 281
96
In order to confirm and enrich the quantitative data related to program directors’
satisfaction with their skills, program directors were asked during the interviews which
job performance skills they felt least prepared to handle. The most common response
was related to budget and resources, with five of the thirteen program directors indicating
this to be their skill with which they were least satisfied. This reflects the quantitative
data for this skill. One program director described his difficulties with the budget this
way:
Our funds are fairly limited. You know it’s really important that we work
efficiently …some of the things that we could do to save money, we don’t have
time to really implement those. You know, it doesn’t come as natural like some of
the other things.
Some program directors reflected upon the lack of resources that were available to them.
Budget constraints made it difficult for them to meet the demands of the department.
One program director said:
The way it is right now with money constraints, or money restraints and all, it
seems like budget is a real problem and trying to balance out and juggle out the
money that we have for additional faculty and just over all running other
programs, that’s the area that I can see that needs more work.
Another area of weakness identified by program directors was in the area of
faculty affairs. Four of the thirteen program directors felt that conflict management and
dealing with problems with faculty was the most difficult part of their job. Again, this
was reflected in the quantitative data with this being the second lowest rating of
satisfaction with skills of the program directors. One program director said this about
dealing with faculty:
We hire very competent, and capable faculty here and typically problems that
arise generally don’t rise to the level of coming to the chairman of the department,
because they’re generally handled at a lower level successfully, with all parties
coming away amicable. So I think that because I don’t have the experience of
97
having to deal with many conflict situations, I think that’s probably my weakest
area.
Another program director felt that handling conflict with staff was the most unpleasant
part of the position. He described his experience this way:
I would say, you know the thing that I think is probably, I’m not sure would be
least prepared, but the thing that is not fun is the discipline, especially disciplining
staff. Which maybe sounds harsh, but in terms of like making sure people are here
when they are supposed to be, and you want to have a nice work environment
where everyone is happy to be at work, but you also the reality of needing to be at
work on time and to be doing what they need to be doing.
One other program director articulated her displeasure with handling faculty situations a
bit differently. Again, the point was stressed that this was an unpleasant part of the job.
She said:
Well, I really do not feel I’m a good supervisor. I never wanted to be a supervisor,
I like to teach, I like to run school and make sure it’s in compliance with the rules
and regulations of the accrediting body, and now I have several teachers that are
underneath me and I really don’t feel that I have the skills to discipline people, I
don’t have the desire to do it and it just… I just really don’t think I have the
personality for that.
Program directors were also asked what job performance skills they felt most
equipped to handle. Consistent with the quantitative data, instruction was the skill most
often mentioned. Program directors felt that this skill was a strength that had been
developed through experience. One program director summed up it up by saying: “I
mean, I teach, I feel really comfortable teaching. I’ve taught for [number, more than 15]
years now.” Another skill that was mentioned by several program directors was
department governance. Again, experience was cited as a major reason for the
confidence program directors had with this skill. One program director said,
Well, in actuality, probably departmental management. I’ve had [number] years

experience, so I’ve learned a lot of what not to do and what to do and over the
years, I think I’ve managed to get better when there is a problem. Me tinkering
98
with it doesn’t make it worse which is easy to do. So, I think my strengths are
just managing the entire program.
Overall, program directors seemed very satisfied with their skills. When asked
about skills they were most and least satisfied with, there were several responses by
program directors that indicated their confidence. For example, one program director
said, “You’re talking to somebody who has a high opinion of himself, as most program
directors do.” Another stated it this way, “there, none of those do I feel inadequate or do
I feel like I’m missing critical skills.” Program directors felt that their position required
them to be competent with many skills. One program director said, “to be totally honest,
you have to handle them all. I mean, I don’t know that I could really say any one
anymore so than the other because it’s required of you to do them all.”
Table 31 provides a comparison of the rankings of the level of importance to the
department with the level of satisfaction with leadership skills for each of the
responsibilities. The ratings for the level of importance of the responsibilities were very
similar to the ratings for the level of satisfaction of program directors with their
leadership skills in relation to the responsibilities. Instruction received the highest rating
for the level of importance to departments and program directors were also most satisfied
with their leadership skills in relation to this responsibility. Budget and resources
received the lowest rating for level of importance to a department and the lowest rating
for program director satisfaction with leadership skills in relation to this responsibility.
Program directors were asked about the similarity of the rankings of the
importance of the responsibilities and program directors’ satisfaction with their skills as
related to the responsibilities. More than half of the program directors felt the similarity
was due to “human nature”. These program directors indicated that it was natural for
99
someone to rank something that they felt most skilled at performing higher than
something that they felt less skilled. One program director said,
I think that’s human nature. I think…as humans we tend to gravitate toward what
we’re comfortable with and we tend to do that more. And, I think as people, we’re
afraid to push ourselves towards our weaknesses, to again become more flexible.
Table 31: Comparison of rankings of importance to department vs. satisfaction with skills
for responsibilities
Responsibility Importance Ranking Satisfaction with
Skills Ranking
Instruction 1 1
Department governance 2 3
Student affairs 3 2
External communication 4 4
Faculty affairs 5 6
Professional development 6 6
Office management 7 5
Budget and resources 7 7
Another program director described it with a metaphor by saying,
Human nature I guess. Things that you feel are important are going to be the
things that you are good at. Sure a baseball pitcher probably thinks pitching is the
most important aspect of the game. Catcher thinks catching is the most important,
I don’t know, maybe people’s jobs descriptions, people’s jobs are formed around
their strengths I think that’s probably with a lot of things with life, kind of that
culture personality type thing where maybe have certain strengths. You go out
there and make that job your own based on what your strengths are.
100
Several other program directors felt that the similarity of the ratings was directly related
to an individual’s experience with those skill areas. For example, one program director
stated,
Because, we’re much more comfortable with things that we do on a routine basis.
We become very, very skilled in doing them. Things that we are not asked to do
very often, we often feel uncomfortable doing them. We just don’t feel as skilled.
Another program director was much more direct with his comments and said, “well
obviously, if I am not good at a skill, I am not going to feel comfortable with it, and not
want to make it a priority.”
During the telephone interviews, program directors were asked what leadership
skills they would most like to improve. The two most frequent responses were conflict
management and communication and listening skills. Five program directors indicated
that conflict management was a skill they would like to improve. Often a lack of
experience in handling conflict situations was cited as a reason for needing to develop
this skill. One program director said, “conflict resolution, only because I haven’t done it
much.” Another program director elaborated on the need for this skill by saying,
I think that I could really use some help in knowing how to discipline people that
are underneath me. I think I need some help in disagreeing without being
disagreeable. I think I need help in addressing problems as soon as they come up
instead of hoping that over time they will go away and then by the time I realize
they are not going to go way, I’m so very angry.
Four program directors stated that communication and listening skills were
something they would like to improve. One program director stated, “I wish my verbal
communication skills were better. I wish I was more eloquent.” Another summed up
their feeling regarding this skill by saying, “I always want to improve communication. I
think I am a good communicator, but I can always work on being, listening more to what
others in the group are contributing.”
101
Program directors were also asked to state their preferences on how best to learn
leadership skills. A summary of their responses is provided in Table 32. Approximately
69% of program directors indicated they prefer to learn through workshops and lectures.
Actual experiences that occur on the job and networking and having mentors both had
31% of program directors stating that these methods would be effective for them.
Articles on leadership was the method least cited with 23% of program directors
choosing this option.
Table 32: Percentage of faculty responses related to methods of learning
Method Percentage
Workshops/lectures 69%
Actual experience 31%
Networking/mentors 31%
Articles 23%
Program Directors’ Leadership Styles
Program directors’ leadership style was assessed by self-report data obtained from
the MLQ (5x-Short). Table 33 provides the means and standard deviations of the scores
obtained from the program directors. Overall, program directors were transformational
leaders (mean=3.28). For the transformational variables, the mean of the programs
directors’ scores was above 3.0 with individual consideration having the highest mean
(mean=3.51) followed by inspirational motivation (mean=3.35). The mean of program
directors’ transactional scores was 2.01. For the transactional variables, contingent
reward had the highest mean of 3.26, followed by management by exception (active) with
102
a mean of 1.78. Laissez faire received the lowest ratings with a mean of 0.53.
Additionally, all of the MLQ variables were normally distributed.
Table 33: Means and standard deviations for MLQ variables
Variable M SD Skewness Kurtosis n
Inspirational motivation 3.35 .515 -1.02 1.90 284
Intellectual stimulation 3.18 .469 -.07 -.41 284
Individual consideration 3.51 .400 -.68 -.08 284
Idealized influence (behavior) 3.24 .524 -.52 .22 284
Idealized influence (attributed) 3.13 .553 -.34 -.36 284
Total transformational 3.28 .378 -.38 -.15 284
Contingent reward 3.26 .493 -.69 .71 284
Management by exception (active) 1.78 .878 .20 -.58 284
Management by exception (passive) 1.00 .639 .54 .17 284
Total transactional 2.01 .438 -.05 -.66 284
Laissez-faire .53 .543 1.06 .59 284
During the interviews, program directors were asked to describe their personal
leadership style. All of the program directors identified as transformational described
their leadership style in terms of transformational characteristics. Additionally, one of
the transactional leaders described their leadership style in terms of transformational
characteristics. While the transactional leader had a high transactional score
(mean=2.08), this leader also had a high transformational score (mean=3.45). Several of
the transformational program directors described their leadership style as democratic or
participatory. For example, one program director said,
103
Well, I suppose one would be participative, I believe in the collegiality of faculty,
in that each faculty brings to this department a unique set of skills, experiences,
knowledge, and vision and forward thinking ideas. And, that we as administrators
need to tap into all those resources and in order to do that, there has to be an
avenue for a faculty to feel free to want to voice their ideas and know that we can
work together to implement and achieve the positive outcomes that might result
from those types of ideas. And I guess, I don’t like to make decisions in vacuums
and so my idea is to get as much information from as many people as I possibly
can…
Others discussed nurturing, coaching, and mentoring as important aspects of their
leadership style. These descriptions were consistent with the transformational factors of
individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation. The importance of building
relationships was stressed by one program director who stated,
My style is more, leadership by walking around and getting to know the students,
getting to know the managers, it’s more relationship based, and yeah, building
those relationships so that we have strong community ties, and, strong support
system outside of the college.
Another program director emphasized relationships as well when she stated,“…I’m very
nurturing. I try to nurture their strengths, coach them on weak areas. I look at that as a
daily leadership style. Every opportunity with them is an opportunity to do such.” Thus,
transformational leaders emphasized the importance of participation and relationships in
their leadership styles.
With the exception of the transactional leader previously mentioned, the program
directors identified as transactional described themselves in terms of transactional and
laissez faire leadership characteristics. One term that several of these program directors
used was “micromanagement”. Program directors indicated that their style was to not
micromanage. Additionally, their descriptions were consistent with the characteristics of
passive management by exception. For example, one program director stated,
I don’t micromanage. I pretty much let folks develop themselves and then I
observe them, evaluate them, if I see they are going down a wrong pathway, you
104
know, I’ll counsel them or provide intervention. I really just let them be their
own boss and manager…Again, I’ll observe and intervene as necessary.
Another described their approach to leadership this way,
Very laid back….We are all adults. We know what we have to do. Let’s just do
it and I’m not into micro management. I just want people to do what they are
supposed to do so I don’t have to worry about it.
One program director’s description of their leadership style seemed to be very passive
consistent with passive management by exception and laissez faire leadership. He said,
“Well, I’m pretty easy going and laid back for the most part….I like to keep things in a
relaxed atmosphere….So I try not to add to that, you know the stress that they already
feel.”
One program director described the authoritative nature of his leadership style.
His description was more similar to characteristics identified with active management by
exception. When asked about his leadership style, he described it as:
Abrupt, confrontational… Very dichotomous, very black and white, somewhat

authoritarian, quite rule oriented, I run a real tight ship with a lot of written rules
and guidelines and they’re enforced, so I think I maybe do that more than a lot of
people do.
Overall, program directors’ descriptions of their leadership styles were consistent
with the scores obtained from the MLQ. Those who were identified as transformational
described their style as participative, democratic, and nurturing, while those identified as
transactional leaders described their style as authoritative and passive.
During the telephone interviews, program directors were provided with a list of
transformational and transactional characteristics and asked which were most important.
Overwhelmingly, the transformational characteristics were selected by all types of
leaders. Only one transactional leader selected transactional characteristics as most
important. Two characteristics were selected by five of the program directors—
105
intellectually stimulating and inspirational. Being considerate was chosen by four of the
program directors as most important. Of the program directors who selected
intellectually stimulating as the most important characteristic, three were transformational
leaders and two were transactional leaders. Those who selected intellectually stimulating
referred to its importance in terms of students and faculty. One of the program directors
who selected intellectually stimulating described how this characteristic was important in
dealing with students:
As far as intellectually stimulating, they [students] like to look for easy answers,
they just find something to memorize, they don’t want to do the application and
analysis part of the cognitive domain. So, I try to encourage them to think in
terms of application and analysis and understanding and not just basic knowledge.
Another program director described the importance of displaying this characteristic with
faculty:
I think if you can stimulate the people around you then, once again they are kind
of going to take the ball and run with it. They are going to hopefully build on
that….I think that if you’re intellectually stimulating, you give people the
opportunity to research on their own or to work out things that interest them,
things they don’t have to be watched by a supervisor. That’s self-motivated.
One program director stated the importance of being intellectually stimulating with
faculty very simply. She said, “I think intellectually stimulating is very important,
because then you get people on your team who you acknowledge that their ideas are
valuable. They bring something to the organization.”
Four of the five program directors who selected being inspirational as the most
important characteristic were transformational leaders. Program directors also referred to
the characteristic of being inspirational in terms of students and faculty. In terms of
students, one program director described the importance of being inspirational in this
way:
106
Well, unfortunately, the students, they come in motivated but over the two-year
period, I think some of that motivation they get burned out, but I guess I feel the
need to inspire them to keep their level of effort up to a high level.
Being inspirational with faculty was the most common theme discussed by the program
directors. One program director summed up her impression of the importance of this
characteristic saying,
I think that when you are in a role of leadership, you’re setting the tone. You’re
setting the example, and if you’re not an inspirational leader, I think that your
faculty are just going to sort of withdraw and look elsewhere for inspiration. I
think that being inspirational involves being charismatic and considerate. I think
it’s hard to have one quality and not integrate some of those other ones in there
too. I think that leadership should be an inspirational role for all those that you
are leading. You’re leading by example.
Thus, this program director felt that several of the transformational factors were related
and that, in order to display one characteristic successfully, it is necessary to display other
transformational characteristics.
Four program directors stated that being considerate was the most important
characteristic for a leader to have. Three of the program directors who made this
selection were transactional leaders. One program director explained his feeling about
being considerate:
I think for people to grow, you have to be considerate of their style, their facets,
their personalities, and I believe it shows respect to them. That’s… looking at
myself, that’s how I grew and succeeded, so I just assume that’s what most other
people would want in return as well.
One transactional program director identified closely monitoring followers and
providing incentives for others’ behavior as most important. This program director felt
that these qualities were important in maintaining a successful program. He stated,
They [closely monitoring followers and providing incentives for others’ behavior]
maintain a quality program. I think that’s primarily what they do. Even to the
point where I have significant attrition. Attrition is a function of relatively open
107
admission system and a quality program. So, it’s relatively easy to get into my
program, but it is not easy to get through the program.
From the list of transformational and transactional characteristics, program
directors were asked to identify the characteristic that was least important. The
characteristic most often selected as least important was being charismatic. Eight
program directors indicated this transformational characteristic was the least important.
Three program directors identified the transactional characteristic of closely monitoring
followers as the least important. One program director indicated that providing
incentives for others’ behavior was least important and one felt that all the characteristics
were important depending on the situation.
Of the program directors that felt being charismatic was the least important
characteristic, four were transformational leaders and four were transactional leaders.
The program directors who chose this characteristic had a similar theme in their
responses to why they believed this was the least important characteristic. Program
directors seemed to have the belief that this was not essential for successful leadership.
One program director stated, “I think most people that are in positions of power and
influence can see through the charisma. So they’re looking for more authentic skills in a
leader.” The feeling that this was not a critical characteristic was echoed by another
program director who explained,
Well, define charismatic for me, I mean, you talk about somebody that is, you
know, is very animated and very out there. Again, that to me can be a façade, you
may not be really seeing the real person. It may just be façade, or a very shallow
not too intellectual person.
108
Finally, one program director summed their thoughts on this characteristic by stating,
“you can be a charmer, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you have a message and know
how to get it across. You just know how to woo them.”
Four program directors chose transactional characteristics as the least important.
Two transformational program directors and one transactional program director selected
closely monitoring followers as the least important characteristic. One program director
detailed the negative effect this characteristic could have on followers:
Well, yeah. I mean, it depends on, if the people know what they are supposed to
do. And we are adults, then you just expect them to do what is right, and I don’t
think that anyone needs to just micromanage, if that’s what closely monitoring
means. That is, when you have a new faculty member, you have to spend time
and to me that is being more considerate more than anything else, not necessarily
closely monitoring their activities. But you know, the micromanaging has a
tendency to be over bearing, intimidating, and I just don’t think that the people
that work with you will work with you well, if you are intimidating to them.
One transformational program director indicated that providing incentives for
others’ behavior was the least important characteristic. He outlined the problems with
this characteristic in dealing with faculty:
…but basically in order to get some sort of kudos to get you do what I want you
to do, and that’s important to some respect. But, I think if you really want to
motivate people you really need to find what’s important to that person and once
again try to form that job around them. If somebody doesn’t want to teach
physics, and you force them to teach physics, [they are] probably not going to
teach very well….We all do things we don’t want to do in our jobs.
Finally, one transactional leader felt that all of the characteristics were important
given the proper situation. This program director held a situational view of leadership
and stated,
I think a leader has to have some of all of them. I don’t know of any as least
important. I think some leaders are born actually charismatic, other leaders work
at it and become a leader through maybe intellectual stimulation. But, anyone of
those being least valuable, I can’t say any one being least valuable because a
109
leader, director, manager, has to pull upon some of those skills at different times
depending on what the situation is. And, I think in my experiences, when I have
seen other chairman or leaders at various institutions who could not tap into one
of those other skills they tend to be less successful.
Table 34 displays the correlations for the MLQ (5x-Short) variables which were
used in the regression calculations in this study. There was a significant positive
correlation among the five transformational variables (IIA, IIB, IM, IS, and IC). There
were significant positive correlations among the five transformational variables and the
transactional variable of contingent reward. The transactional variable, management by
exception (active) had a significant positive relationship with the transformational
variable idealized influence (attributed). Management by exception (passive) had a
significant negative correlation with four of the transformational variables (IIA, IM, IS,
and IC). Laissez faire leadership had a significant negative relationship with three of the
transformational variables (IIA, IM, and IC).
Among the transactional variables, there were also some significant correlations.
Contingent reward had a significant positive correlation with management by exception
(active) and a significant negative correlation with management by exception (passive).
Additionally, management by exception (active) and management by exception (passive)
demonstrated a significant positive correlation. Laissez faire leadership had a significant
negative relationship with the variable contingent reward and a significant positive
relationship with management by exception (active) and management by exception
(passive).
The reliability of each of the MLQ (5x-Short) scales is provided on Table 35. The
transformational variables reliabilities ranged from 0.512 to 0.747. For the
transformational variables only inspirational motivation was above a 0.70 reliability. The
110
Table 34: Correlation matrix for MLQ variables
IIA IIB IM IS IC CR MA MP LF
IIA --
IIB .463** --
IM .536** .486**
IS .452** .476** .455** --
IC .482** .450** .488** .558** --
CR .445** .476** .458** .445** .468** --
MA .166** .107 .047 .092 .035 .184** --
MP -.206** -.095 -.181** -.192** -.234** -.174** .228** --
LF -.212** -.072 -.132** -.107 -.169** -.201** .125* .501** --
Note. *designates a correlation that is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed); **designates
a correlation that is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed) IIA=idealized influence
attributed IIB=idealized influence behavior IM=inspirational motivation IS=intellectual
stimulation IC=individualized consideration CR=contingent reward MA=management by
exception active MP=management by exception passive LF=laissez-faire
Table 35: Reliability of the MLQ
MLQ Scale N Alpha Reliability
Inspirational motivation 279 .747
Intellectual stimulation 273 .555
Individual consideration 280 .508
Idealized influence (behavior) 279 .512
Idealized influence (attributed) 268 .603
Contingent reward 257 .447
Management by exception (active) 267 .749
Management by exception (passive) 278 .640
Laissez-faire 276 .505
111
transactional variables reliabilities ranged from 0.447 to 0.749. Only the transactional
variable of management by exception (active) was above the 0.70 threshold. Finally, the
reliability for laissez faire leadership was 0.505. These differed from the 0.74 to 0.94
reliabilities found by Bass and Avolio (2000). However, the reliabilities for this study
were based on self-ratings, while the reliabilities reported by Bass and Avolio were based
on others evaluating the leader.
Research Question 3
How well does leadership style explain program directors’ perceived level of
stimulation, individual consideration, idealized influence (behavior), idealized influence
(attributed) (transformational factors) explain program directors’ perceived level of
Research Question 3b: How well do contingent reward, management by exception
(active), and management by exception (passive) (transactional factors) explain program
Multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine how well leadership
style, transformational factors, and transactional factors explained program directors’
perceived level of importance of their responsibilities. There are several assumptions
associated with multiple regression that were checked for each analysis. Normality was
assessed for each of the variables utilized in the regression (Tables 33 & 36). The
dependent variables of department governance and instruction were not normally
112
distributed, therefore, these variables were transformed by squaring each of them. This
transformation provided the most normal distribution of the variables.
Table 36: Means and standard deviations for dependent variables
Department governance 3.77 .509 -2.27 5.29 281
Instruction 3.86 .389 -2.76 7.36 281
Faculty affairs 3.33 .806 -1.03 .40 281
Student affairs 3.69 .534 -1.53 1.43 280
External communication 3.52 .644 -1.18 .96 281
Budget and resources 3.06 .873 -.61 -.41 279
Office management 3.06 .862 -.59 -.40 281
Professional development 3.21 .846 -.84 -.03 281
Second, the linear relationship between the variables was assessed utilizing a
scatter plot. Additionally, the scatter plots were used to determine if the data met the
assumption of homoscedasticity. Based on the scatter plots of the studentized deleted
residuals and the responsibilities, the assumptions of linearity and homoscedasticity were
tenable.
To answer research question three, a regression analysis was performed with
importance of the responsibility as the dependent variable and leadership style
(transformational, transactional, and laissez faire) as the independent variables. Of the
eight regression analyses that were conducted, the regression equations for the
responsibilities of department governance (R2=.036, adjusted R2=.026, F (3, 277)=3.49, p
=.016), instruction (R2=.036, adjusted R2=.025, F (3, 277)=3.42, p =.018), external
113
communication (R2=.060, adjusted R2=.050, F (3, 277)=5.87, p =.001), budget and
resources (R2=.061, adjusted R2=.051, F (3, 275)=5.99, p =.001), and professional
development (R2=.131, adjusted R2=.121, F (3, 277)=13.91, p =<.001) demonstrated a
statistically significant relationship with leadership style. The dependent variables of
faculty affairs (R2=.027, adjusted R2=.017, F (3, 277)=2.59, p =.054), student affairs
(R2=.024, adjusted R2=.014, F (3, 276)=2.30, p =.078), and office management (R2=.021,
adjusted R2=.010, F (3, 277)=1.96, p =.121) did not have a statistically significant
relationship with leadership style. The beta weights of each of the independent variables
with the individual dependent variables are displayed in table 37. Of the independent
variables, only transformational leadership had a statistically significant positive
relationship with any of the independent variables. Transformational leadership was a
significantly related to department governance, instruction, faculty affairs, external
communication, budget and resources, and professional development.
In summary, leadership style was a significant indicator for the responsibilities of
department governance, instruction, external communication, budget and resources, and
professional development. Additionally, transformational leadership was the only
leadership style which had a significant relationship with any of the responsibilities.
Thus, transformational leaders ranked the responsibilities of department governance,
instruction, external communication, budget and resources, and professional development
higher than transactional and laissez faire leaders. However, in this analysis a mean for
each of the leadership styles was used for the calculations. To further explore the
individual factors associated with transformational and transactional leadership,
additional regressions were analyzed in relation to the responsibilities.
114
Table 37: Comparison of beta weights of leadership styles for importance of responsibilities
Dependent Variables
Department Instruction Faculty Student External Budget & Office Professional
Governance affairs affairs communication resources management development
Variable Beta t Beta t Beta t Beta t Beta t Beta t Beta t Beta t
Transformational .13 2.13* .12 1.86 .16 2.49* .09 1.39 .24 3.96*** .24 3.88*** .13 2.00* .36 6.15***
Transactional .01 0.16 .09 1.48 -.04 -.61 .11 1.81 -.01 -.09 .04 .60 .04 .58 -.04 -.69
Laissez faire -.12 -1.84 -.10 -1.60 -.04 -.57 -.001 -.01 -.01 -.23 .01 .14 -.03 -.53 -.02 .38
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
115
To answer the research question 3a, a regression was utilized with the level of
importance of each of the responsibilities as the dependent variable and inspirational
motivation, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, idealized influence
(behavior), idealized influence (attributed) (transformational factors) as the independent
variables. The regression models for the responsibilities of instruction (R2=.058, adjusted
R2=.041, F (5, 275)=3.40, p =.005), external communication (R2=.094, adjusted R2=.078,
F (5, 275)=5.71, p =<.001), budget and resources (R2=.089, adjusted R2=.072, F (5,
273)=5.32, p =<.001), office management (R2=.054, adjusted R2=.037, F (5, 275)=3.14, p
=.009) and professional development (R2=.159, adjusted R2=.144, F (5, 275)=10.39, p
=<.001) were statistically significant. The regression equations for the responsibilities of
department governance (R2=.037, adjusted R2=.019, F (5, 275)=2.08, p =.068), faculty
affairs (R2=.030, adjusted R2=.012, F (5, 275)=1.69, p =.136), and student affairs
(R2=.037, adjusted R2=.019, F (5, 274)=2.08, p =.068) were not statistically significant.
Additionally, the beta weights of each of the transformational factors were analyzed to
determine any significant relationships (see Table 38). Inspirational motivation had a
statistically significant positive relationship with the dependent variables of budget and
resources and professional development. Individualized consideration demonstrated a
significant positive relationship with the responsibilities of instruction and student affairs.
Finally, idealized influence (behavior) had a significant positive relationship with the
responsibilities of external communication, budget and resources, office management,
and professional development.
In summary, the responsibilities of instruction, external communication, budget
and resources, office management, and professional development demonstrated
regression models with significant relationships to the transformational factors.
116
Table 38: Comparison of beta weights of transformational factors for importance of responsibilities
Dependent Variables
Inspirational -.07 .90 <.00 <-.00 .11 1.38 -.07 -.93 .02 .30 .20 2.73** -.11 -1.46 .25 3.44**
motivation
Intellectual -.01 -.07 .10 1.31 .04 .57 -.04 -.52 .19 2.55* -.02 -.27 -.04 -.55 .04 .56
stimulation
Individualized .03 .39 .21 2.72** <.00 -.04 .18 2.26* -.09 -1.22 -.01 -.12 .07 .89 .11 1.54
consideration
Idealized .11 1.52 .02 .28 .08 1.13 .13 1.72 .21 2.96** .18 2.56* .24 3.29** .16 2.29*
influence
(behavior)
Idealized .13 1.74 -.12 -1.58 -.03 -.37 -.04 -.54 -.01 -.14 -.04 -.55 .03 .39 -.09 -1.19
influence
(attributed)
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
117
Additionally, evaluation of the beta weights of the independent variables demonstrated a
significant relationship of several of the individual transformational factors with the
responsibilities. This indicates that the level of importance of some responsibilities is
viewed differently by leaders with different transformational characteristics. For
instance, idealized influence behavior had significant relationship with the
responsibilities of external communication, budget and resources, office management and
professional development. Individualized consideration had a significant relationship
with two responsibilities: student affairs and instruction. The transformational factor of
intellectual stimulation was significantly related to the responsibility of external
communication. Finally, inspirational motivation demonstrated a significant relationship
with the responsibilities of professional development and budget and resources. Thus,
leaders with these characteristics view the responsibilities indicated by the results as more
important.
Regression analysis was utilized to answer research question 3b with the level of
importance of each of the responsibilities as the dependent variable and the transactional
factors of contingent reward, management by exception (active), and management by
exception (passive) as the independent variables. All of the regression models for the
dependent variables and the transactional factors were statistically significant
(department governance, R2=.045, adjusted R2=.035, F (3, 277)=4.39, p =.005,
instruction, R2=.029, adjusted R2=.018, F (3, 277)=2.72, p =<.045; faculty affairs,
R2=.061, adjusted R2=.050, F (3, 277)=5.95, p =.001; student affairs, R2=.031, adjusted
R2=.020, F (3, 276)=2.93, p =.034; external communication, R2=.073, adjusted R2=.063,
F (3, 277)=7.24, p =<.001; budget and resources, R2=.098, adjusted R2=.088, F (3,
275)=9.93, p =<.001; office management, R2=.048, adjusted R2=.038, F (3,277)=4.65, p
118
=.003; professional development, R2=.077, adjusted R2=.067, F (3, 277)=7.68, p =<.001).
Inspection of the individual beta weights of the independent variables for each of the
regression analyses revealed that contingent reward had a statistically significant positive
relationship with all of the dependent variables (see Table 39). Additionally,
management by exception (passive) had a statistically significant negative relationship
with the dependent variable of department governance.
In summary, all of the regression models between the responsibilities and the
transactional variables demonstrated a significant positive relationship. In other words,
the transactional leadership factors helped to explain program directors’ rankings of the
importance of the responsibilities. Further inspection of the beta weights of the
independent variables determined a significant positive relationship between the
transactional variable of contingent reward with each of the responsibilities indicating
that leaders with this characteristic rated the responsibilities higher. The only other
transactional variable that demonstrated a significant relationship was management by
exception (passive). The responsibility of department governance had a significant
negative relationship with management by exception (passive). Thus, leaders with this
characteristic rated the importance of department governance lower.
Research Question 4
How well do leadership style, discipline of highest degree, program type, and
years of experience as a program director explain the level of satisfaction with program
directors’ leadership skills as related to their responsibilities?
stimulation, individual consideration, idealized influence (behavior), idealized influence
119
(attributed) (transformational factors) explain the level of satisfaction with program
Research Question 4b: How well do contingent reward, management by exception
(active), and management by exception (passive) (transactional factors) explain the level
responsibilities?
style, discipline of highest degree, program type, and years of experience as a program
director explain the level of satisfaction with program directors’ leadership skills as
related to their responsibilities. Additional regression analyses were done to examine
how well transformational and transactional factors explain the level of satisfaction with
program directors’ leadership skills as related to their responsibilities. As with the
previous analysis for research question three, the assumptions associated with multiple
regression were checked. Normality for the leadership style variables had been
established for research question three (see Table 33). The normality of the other
dependent (see Table 40) and independent variables was assessed. All of the variables
utilized for the multiple regression analyses were normally distributed. Again, the linear
relationship of the variables and the assumption of homoscedasticity were evaluated by
examining the scatter plots of the studentized deleted residuals and the responsibilities.
Based on these analyses, these assumptions were tenable.
The regression analyses conducted to ascertain how well program type, years of
experience, discipline of highest degree, and leadership style explained program
directors’ level of satisfaction with their leadership skills in relation to the responsibilities
demonstrated statistically significant relationships for all of the dependent variables
120
Table 39: Comparison of beta weights of transactional factors for importance of responsibilities
Dependent Variables
Contingent .15 2.38* .17 2.68** .21 3.51** .16 2.58* .26 4.30*** .312 5.20*** .18 2.86** .26 4.36***
reward
Management .03 .40 .02 .31 -.07 -1.13 .05 .74 -.05 -.85 -.03 -.55 .04 .65 -.06 -1.06
by exception
(active)
Management -.13 -2.11* .01 .14 -.08 -1.35 .05 .72 -.05 -.76 -.02 -.35 -.10 -1.54 -.06 -.92
by exception
(passive)
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
121
(department governance R2=.112, F (9, 260)=4.76, p =<.001; instruction, R2=.170,
adjusted R2=.142, F (9,263)=5.60, p =<.001; faculty affairs, R2=.119, adjusted R2=.089, F
(9,261)=3.92, p =<.001; student affairs, R2=.147, adjusted R2=.118, F (9,260)=4.99, p
=<.001; external communication, R2=.177, adjusted R2=.149, F (9,264)=6.30, p =<.001;
Table 40: Means and standard deviations for dependent variables
Department governance 3.43 .647 -.85 .40 279
Instruction 3.72 .495 -1.50 1.31 282
Faculty affairs 3.27 .716 -.74 .33 280
Student affairs 3.59 .604 -1.29 1.11 279
External communication 3.36 .661 -.55 -.69 283
Budget and resources 2.93 .759 -.22 -.47 281
Office management 3.28 .715 -.60 -.41 281
Professional development 3.27 .715 -.56 -.44 281
budget and resources, R2=.114, adjusted R2=.084, F (9,263)=3.76, p =<.001; office
management, R2=.094, adjusted R2=.062, F (9,262)=3.01, p =.002; professional
development, R2=.144, adjusted R2=.115, F (9,262)=4.90, p =<.001). The beta weight of
each of the independent variables was also examined in relation to all of the dependent
variables (see Table 41). Years of experience had a significant positive relationship with
the dependent variables of department governance, instruction, faculty affairs, and budget
and resources. Transformational leadership displayed a significant relationship with
program directors’ level of satisfaction with their leadership skills in relation to all of the
responsibilities except office management. Laissez faire leadership had a significant
122
Table 41: Comparison of beta weights of independent variables for level of satisfaction with leadership skills as related to
responsibilities
Dependent Variables
Department Governance Instruction Faculty affairs Student affairs
Variable Beta t Beta t Beta t Beta t
Program type 1 <-.00 -.04 .03 .49 -.06 -.92 <-.00 -.03
Program type 2 -.11 -1.94 -.04 -.71 -.07 -1.19 -.15 -2.53*
Years of experience .16 2.68** .22 3.83*** .15 2.59* .11 1.94
Discipline of highest degree 1 -.05 -.71 -.05 -.71 -.08 -1.04 <.00 .02
Discipline of highest degree 2 .06 .78 -.07 -.90 .06 .82 .12 1.63
Discipline of highest degree 3 -.09 -1.04 .04 .49 .02 .29 -.13 -1.63
Transformational .17 2.69** .18 2.90** .23 3.60*** .26 4.16***
Transactional .03 .41 -.03 -.53 -.06 -.89 -.02 -.32
Laissez faire -.22 -3.56*** -.24 -3.96*** -.14 -2.24* -.14 -2.22*
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
123
Table 41: Continued
Dependent Variables
External communication Budget & resources Office management Professional development
Variable Beta t Beta t Beta t Beta t
Program type 1 -.09 -1.53 -.12 -1.94 .12 1.96 -.10 -1.64
Program type 2 -.05 -.83 -.02 -.38 -.05 -.78 -.065 -1.12
Years of experience .03 .44 .15 2.53* .10 1.72 .03 .44
Discipline of highest degree 1 -.08 -1.11 .05 .62 -.07 -.92 .01 .06
Discipline of highest degree 2 .08 1.03 .02 .24 -.02 -.29 .10 1.33
Discipline of highest degree 3 -.02 -.22 .01 .09 .05 .64 .01 .11
Transformational .36 5.91*** .20 3.18** .02 .35 .37 5.96***
Transactional -.02 -.39 .08 1.24 .02 .32 -.10 -1.68
Laissez faire -.15 -2.47* -.16 -2.47* -.25 -3.87*** -.03 -.48
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
124
negative relationship with program directors’ level of satisfaction with their leadership
skills for all of the responsibilities except professional development.
In summary, all of the regressions conducted to determine how well program
type, years of experience, discipline of highest degree, and leadership style explained
program directors’ level of satisfaction with their leadership skills in relation to their
responsibilities were significant. Years of experience of program directors was positively
related to program directors’ level of satisfaction with the responsibilities of department
governance, instruction, faculty affairs, and budget and resources. Thus, as the years of
experience of a program director increased, their satisfaction in relation to those
responsibilities did as well. Transformational leadership was positively related to
program directors’ level of satisfaction with all of the responsibilities excluding office
management. Therefore, as transformational leadership increased, satisfaction with
leadership skills did as well. Laissez faire leadership was significantly negatively related
to program directors’ level of satisfaction with their leadership skills in relation to all of
the responsibilities with the exception of professional development. This demonstrates
that as laissez faire leadership increased, program director’s satisfaction with their
leadership skills decreased.
To answer research question 4a, a regression analysis was utilized with the
transformational leadership factors as the independent variables and program directors’
level of satisfaction in relation to each of their responsibilities as the dependent variable.
The regression analyses examining how the transformational factors explained program
directors’ satisfaction with their leadership skills for the responsibilities of department
governance (R2=.075, adjusted R2=.058, F (5, 273)=4.42, p =.001), instruction (R2=.095,
adjusted R2=.079, F (5, 276)=5.80, p =<.001), faculty affairs (R2=.073, adjusted R2=.056,
125
F (5, 274)=4.33, p =.001), student affairs (R2=.108, adjusted R2=.091, F (5,273)=6.59, p
=<.001), external communication (R2=.150, adjusted R2=.135, F (5, 277)=9.79, p=<.001),
budget and resources (R2=.074, adjusted R2=.057, F (5, 275)=4.37, p =.001) and
professional development (R2=.122, adjusted R2=.106, F (5, 275)=7.63, p =<.001). Only
office management (R2=.028, adjusted R2=.010, F (5, 275)=1.56, p =.172) did not have a
statistically significant relationship with the transformational factors. Table 42 displays
the beta weights for each of the independent variables with the dependent variables. The
transformational factor of inspirational motivation had a significant relationship with the
level of satisfaction with program directors’ leadership skills for the responsibilities of
department governance, instruction, student affairs, external communication, and
professional development. Idealized influence (attributed) had a statistically significant
relationship with program directors level of satisfaction with their leadership skills for the
responsibilities of department governance, instruction, external communication, budget
and resources, and office management. The transformational factor of individualized
consideration had a significant positive relationship with the level of satisfaction of
leadership skills for the responsibility of instruction.
In summary, all of the regression equations examining the how well the
transformational factors explained program directors’ level of satisfaction with their
leadership skills in relation to their responsibilities were significant with the exception of
office management. Additionally, three of the transformational factors were found to
have a significant relationship with the level of satisfaction with leadership skills of some
of the responsibilities. Specifically, inspirational motivation had a significant positive
relationship with program directors’ level of satisfaction with their leadership skills in
126
Table 42: Comparison of beta weights of transformational factors for level of satisfaction with leadership skills as related to
responsibilities
Dependent Variables
Inspirational .16 2.16* .17 2.23* .05 .69 .16 2.10* .16 2.28* .14 1.82 -.02 -.27 .21 2.93**
motivation
Intellectual .09 1.15 -.11 -1.41 .14 1.83 -.10 -1.38 .14 1.94 .03 .46 -.06 -.75 .12 1.65
stimulation
Individualized -.04 -.45 .15 2.00* .11 1.40 .14 1.89 .04 .52 -.02 -.25 .04 .46 .02 .31
consideration
Idealized influence -.08 -1.04 -.06 -.84 -.06 -.89 .11 1.56 -.02 -.30 -.01 -.15 .04 .59 .05 .74
(behavior)
Idealized influence .15 2.07* .16 2.16* .08 1.11 .076 1.04 .16 2.27* .17 2.30* .16 2.05* .03 .34
(attributed)
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
127
relation to the responsibilities of department governance, instruction, student affairs,
external communication, and professional development. The transformational factor of
idealized influence (attributed) was also found to have a significant positive relationship
with the level of satisfaction of leadership skills for the responsibilities of department
governance, instruction, external communication, budget and resources, and office
management. Finally, individualized consideration had a significant positive relationship
with the level of satisfaction of leadership skills in relation to the responsibility of
instruction.
To answer research question 4b, multiple regression analysis was utilized with the
transactional factors as independent variables and program directors’ satisfaction with
their leadership skills in relation to each of the responsibilities as the dependent variable.
The regression equations for the transactional factors and program directors’ satisfaction
with their leadership skills in relation to all of the responsibilities were statistically
significant (department governance, R2=.046, adjusted R2=.035, F (3, 275)=4.38, p =.005;
instruction, R2=.070, adjusted R2=.060, F (3, 278)=6.95, p =<.001; faculty affairs,
R2=.072, adjusted R2=.062, F (3, 276)=7.18, p =<.001; student affairs, R2=.041, adjusted
R2=.031, F (3, 275)=3.96, p =.009; external communication, R2=.109, adjusted R2=.099,
F (3, 279)=11.34, p<.001; budget and resources, R2=.067, adjusted R2=.057, F (3,
277)=6.62, p <.001; office management, R2=.048, adjusted R2=.037, F (3, 277)=4.63, p
=.004; professional development, R2=.081, adjusted R2=.071, F (3, 277)=8.12, p =<.001).
Further evaluation of the beta weights of the independent variables in relation to each of
the dependent variables demonstrated a significant positive relationship for the
transactional factor of contingent reward with all of the dependent variables except office
management (see Table 43). Additionally, the transformational factor of management by
128
exception (passive) had a significant negative relationship with program directors’ level
of satisfaction with their leadership skills for the responsibilities of instruction, external
communication, office management, and professional development.
In summary, all of the regression analyses conducted to find how well the
transactional factors explained program directors’ level of satisfaction with their
leadership skills in relation to their responsibilities were significant. The transactional
factor of contingent reward was found to have a significant positive relationship with
program directors’ level of satisfaction with their leadership skills in relation to all of the
responsibilities with the exception of office management. Thus, contingent reward
leaders were more satisfied with their leadership skills except in the area of office
management. The transactional factor of management by exception (passive) was found
to have a significant negative relationship with program directors’ level of satisfaction
with their leadership skills in relation to the responsibilities of instruction, external
communication, office management, and professional development and, therefore, these
leaders were less satisfied with their leadership skills for these responsibilities.
Research Question 5
Does the level of importance of the responsibilities vary based on gender,
institution type (hospital, 2 year, 4 year, or vocational/technical), or due to an interaction
between institution type and gender?
A series of 2 (gender) by 4 (institution type) ANOVAs with the level of
importance of each of the responsibilities were conducted to determine any significant
effects. Table 44 outlines the results of these analyses. A significant main effect was
found for institution type with the responsibilities of faculty affairs F (3,260)=2.65,
129
Table 43: Comparison of beta weights of transactional factors for level of satisfaction with leadership skills as related to
responsibilities
Dependent Variables
Variable Beta t Beta t Beta t Beta t Beta t Beta t Beta t Bet t
Contingent .16 2.62** .15 2.49* .21 3.50** .16 2.64** .28 4.66*** .23 3.74*** .12 1.91 .21 3.48**
reward
Management -.01 -.08 -.03 -.46 -.08 -1.29 -.01 -.19 -.02 -.39 .04 .69 <.00 .04 -.04 -.57
by exception
(active)
Management -.12 -1.86 -.19 -3.04** -.12 -1.88 -.10 -1.58 -.14 -2.36* -.08 -1.26 -.17 -2.67** -.16 -2.60*
by exception
(passive)
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
130
p=.049 and budget and resources F(3,260)=3.50, p=.016. No other significant
relationships were identified. For the responsibility of faculty affairs, a Tukey post hoc
analysis found no significant differences between any of the institution types. However,
the Tukey post hoc analysis for the responsibility of budget and resources revealed a
significant difference (p<.05) between vocational/technical institutions (mean=2.63) and
two-year institutions (3.19).
Research Question 6
Does the level of satisfaction with program directors’ leadership skills as related
to their responsibilities vary based on gender, highest degree completed (baccalaureate,
masters, or PhD, EdD), or due to an interaction between highest degree completed and
gender?
A series of 2 (gender) by 3 (highest degree completed) ANOVAs with program
directors’ level of satisfaction with their leadership skills in relation to each of the
responsibilities were conducted to determine any significant effects. Table 45 outlines
the results of these analyses. A significant main effect was found for highest degree
completed with program directors’ level of satisfaction with their leadership skills in
relation to the responsibilities of department governance F (2,264)=4.55, p=.011, faculty
affairs F(2,264)=3.21, p=.042, and professional development F (2,264)=3.10, p=.047. No
other significant relationships were identified. For the responsibility of department
governance, a Tukey post hoc analysis found a significant difference (p<.05) between
program directors with PhD or EdD degrees (mean=3.63) and those with baccalaureate
degrees (mean=3.22). The Tukey post hoc analysis for the responsibility of faculty
affairs found significant differences between program directors with PhD or EdD degrees
(mean=3.62) and those with baccalaureate (mean=3.19) and masters (mean=3.25)
131
Table 44: 2 X 4 ANOVA for level of importance of responsibilities
Source df Department Instruction Faculty Student External Budget & Office Professional
governance affairs affairs communication resources management development
Gender 1 .565 1.528 1.970 .332 .738 .052 3.610 .306
(G)
Institution 3 .230 .036 2.654* .143 1.796 3.496* 1.983 2.412
(I)
GxI 3 .637 .071 2.465 2.025 1.132 .361 .366 .458
Error 260 (10.20) (6.86) (.64) (.25) (.40) (.73) (.73) (.73)
Note: Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors.
*p<.05
132
Table 45: 2 X 3 ANOVA for program directors’ level of satisfaction with leadership skills in relation to responsibilities
Source df Department Instruction Faculty Student External Budget & Office Professional
governance affairs affairs communication resources management development
Gender 1 2.519 1.587 .006 .132 .095 .015 1.474 2.039
(G)
Degree 2 4.549* .779 3.208* .419 1.522 2.201 .195 3.094*
(D)
GxD 2 2.282 1.273 .003 .064 .135 .535 .890 1.635
Error 264 (.411) (.244) (.514) (.368) (.438) (.576) (.518) (.508)
Note: Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors.
*p<.05
133
degrees. However, the Tukey post hoc analysis for the responsibility of professional
development did not reveal any significant differences between the highest degree
completed.
Research Question 7
How does program type influence the leadership skills utilized by radiologic
technology program directors?
During the telephone interviews, program directors were asked if program type or
institution type influenced the leadership skills that were utilized. All of the program
directors indicated that these factors did influence the leadership skills they utilized. In
respect to program type, program directors indicated a variety of reasons for the
influence. One difference that program directors indicated was the focus of the
institution. Some program directors felt that hospital-based certificate programs focused
more on students achieving skills, whereas associate and baccalaureate degree programs
focused more on academics. Thus, a different set of leadership skills was necessary to
achieve success in each program type. One program director described the difference:
Well, in a collegiate atmosphere on a campus, there’s more emphasis on academic

excellence and test scores and that sort of thing. Where if you were in a hospital
setting, I was a program director of a hospital based program for [number] years,
in a hospital setting there is more emphasis on a hands on approach.
Another program director provided this description:
I think that kind of educator that I am, I would probably do better in a college
based program….Just because, in a hospital based program, I think the students
have more respect for someone that is with them in a clinical area even if they
won’t learn as much from them in the classroom. And, you know, I haven’t been
in the clinical area since [year], so I wouldn’t even venture into it. That’s for sure,
and I think in a hospital based program, the students put a lot more emphasis on
clinical skills. And, if they don’t see me in the clinical area, at least initially, they
lose confidence in me in the classroom….I’ve taught other classes at other places,
you know like on the side and I don’t experience that anywhere, just here….I just
want to go in there and teach the class….
134
Besides the different focus of academics vs. clinical skills, program directors also
expressed that the environment of a certificate and a degree program differed. Program
directors in degree programs felt that their interactions with faculty helped them to
develop different leadership skills. One program director stated,
I think being at a community college setting has encouraged me to develop more

well rounded skills than maybe I would develop were I in a hospital setting. Part
of that is just interacting with faculty and other administrators here at the college.
Another program director felt that the environment at a university allowed for a better
exchange of ideas and stated, “I suppose we’re in an educational environment, so
thoughts and ideas are more freely expressed than perhaps in industry.”
Finally, some program directors from hospital based programs explained that their
programs were more flexible than programs at universities. These directors indicated that
the procedures that were utilized to make changes in the program were less restrictive
than those of a university. One program director said,
I think with a hospital based program you have a lot of freedom of how you run
the program. There’s not a lot of administration above me telling me what I need
to do. There’s not a lot of administration above me that knows a lot about
education. You know there are hospital administrators, so that gives me a lot of
freedom to make changes to the program as we go along without having to go
through some strong arm committee structure like you find in a college or
something….Here we can make a curriculum change from year to year kind of
lean and mean and change things quickly.
Program directors also indicated how they felt that the institution type affected
their leadership style. When asked how the institution affected his leadership style, one
program director stated, “in order to maintain or advance our issue through college
politics one has to know how it works and follow that pattern.” Other program directors
felt that their leadership style was affected by their administration. These directors
135
indicated that leadership style of their administrator determined the skills they were able
to develop and the skills they utilized. One program director stated,
My leadership skills here are very much different from my previous institution
because the chairmen on this campus are expected to be the academic and
administrative leaders of our little domain. The term I like to use for this
institution is we are confederacy as opposed to a union, in that each of our units
basically functions rather independently. So, the decisions I make don’t always
have to be approved up a hierarchy. There’s certain decisions that do obviously,
but there are a lot of decisions that don’t. So, I have a lot of autonomy in this
position and so my leadership skills here are very autonomous, versus my last
institution where every decision had to be approved by a dean.
Another program director echoed this expression in a different way by stating,
What I’ve experienced so far, people have been considerate of me and observed
me and only counseled me only when they see me going down the wrong path or
as necessary. But, that’s allowed me to grow and use the skills I’m used to using
to allow my own faculty to grow. So, I’ve felt that support from the institution
and you know people that over see my position.
Finally, one program director summed up her feelings about how administration can
affect leadership this way:
It all depends on who your boss is and how much control you have over a lot of
things within your program. You know, if someone above you is a micromanager,
you know then, it kind of rolls down hill to some degree, because they are going
to expect you to do things similarly to the way they do things.
Two program directors at hospital based programs stated that there were different
opportunities for leadership development at their institutions that may not be available in
a university setting. One program director described a program at her institution:
My corporation is unique in that they offer us a series called transformational

leadership and they work with people for a minimum of three days on developing
transformational leadership skills and understanding what they are. And, then
they continue to help you afterwards, after the workshop, in order to make sure
it’s all there.
Another had this to say regarding leadership development at his institution:
…one of the things that this organization does is to provide leaders within the
organization extensive leadership growth opportunities as well as mentoring
136
opportunities so I think, and I’ve been through a number of those, so I think those
type of opportunities really do help to develop leadership qualities….I do have
some experience in a college as an instructor and you don’t have that approach
there. I never experienced that kind of approach in terms of developing leaders
within the organization, or mission driven educational opportunities. Most of the
focus I remember was basically get the teaching done, get the students assessed,
but there was none of that higher level development kind of opportunities there.
In summary, program directors indicated that hospital based programs had a
distinct focus on developing clinical skills rather than academics. However, these
institutions were also more flexible and able to make changes more quickly than a
university based program. Additionally, hospital programs offered unique leadership
development opportunities that may not be as readily available at universities.
Conversely, university based programs provide an environment that focuses on
academics and has an atmosphere where leaders can develop skills through interactions
with other faculty and administrators. Additionally, these types of programs require
leaders to understand the culture and the hierarchy of the institution in order make
changes to the program. Program directors in all institution types and program types can
be affected by the leadership style of their administrator.
Research Question 8
Why have the responsibilities that have been identified as very important to the
department received those rankings?
During the telephone interviews, program directors provided a variety of reasons
for their rankings of specific responsibilities. The quantitative data revealed instruction,
department governance, and student affairs being ranked the highest respectively (see
Table 21). Responsibilities that received the highest ratings seemed to be those which
required the most attention from program directors. Further, the interest in these
137
responsibilities was primarily affected by contextual variables. For example, one
program director discussed the importance of instruction, saying,
I have four hospitals, and three of them are all CR/DR [computed
radiography/digital radiography] which makes the course I teach much more
difficult. It’s very difficult now to teach radiology physics in the concepts of mA
[milliamps], time, all that stuff, when they’re doing digital.
This program director was indicating how current changes in the clinical environment
were impacting instruction. The evolution of technology is affecting how and what must
be taught to students.
Another example of environmental factors influencing how program directors
rated their responsibilities is provided by a program director discussing budget cuts in the
state and institution. She said,
We actually cut nine units out of our budget about nine months ago. So, it was
incredible. We also changed from a format where our clinical instructors were
actually paid for by our hospitals, or were paid by the college and now they are
being paid by the hospitals. So, of course [the pressure] to augment the, not
augment, but to cut back on budget from the college and that was incredible, I
mean it just took incredible amount of political maneuvering...
Thus, for this program director, the budget constraints within her department dictated that
this responsibility take precedence over others. Another program director echoed this
concern with budget, saying, “…decrease funding, having to do more with less. You’re
being asked to expand the program with less resources. So, it takes considerable
management of the resources that you do have.”
Still other program directors emphasized the impact of the institution in why some
responsibilities were ranked high. These program directors indicated that the
environment at their institution affected their responsibilities. For example, one program
director articulated their lack of control over the responsibility of budget and resources.
138
He said, “probably that most of us are given the budget and then told this is it. You have
it and you better spend it all. And if you need anymore too bad.” This lack of control
over a responsibility tends to make a program director feel this is less important since
they are unable to make very much difference in these areas. Another program director
highlights this point saying,
I think most of us program directors, our immediate supervisors handle that

[budget and resources]. And in some cases, we don’t even have a lot of good
input into that area. So it just depends on what the organizational structure is and
who we report to.
The realities of each program director’s situation influenced how the responsibilities were
rated. Based on program directors’ comments, those responsibilities which were
currently requiring a lot of attention and effort tended to be rated higher, and those over
which program directors did not have control, or were not needing much consideration,
were rated lower.
Chapter Summary
The findings of this study indicate that program directors perceive most of their
responsibilities of high importance to their departments. Instruction, department
governance, and student affairs received the highest ratings, respectively. Additionally,
program directors were highly satisfied with their leadership skills in relation to their
responsibilities. Instruction, student affairs, and department governance had the highest
ratings in regards to program directors’ level of satisfaction with their leadership skills,
respectively.
Multiple regression analyses demonstrated that transformational leadership was a
significant indicator of program directors’ rankings of the level of importance of the
139
and resources, and professional development. Four of the individual transformational
factors and two of the transactional factors had significant relationships with some of the
responsibilities. These results provide an interesting insight into the factors that may
affect how program directors view their responsibilities.
Multiple regression analyses showed that program directors’ years of experience
and transformational leadership were positively related to program directors’ level of
satisfaction with their leadership skills in relation to some of their responsibilities.
Conversely, laissez faire leadership was negatively related to program directors’ level of
satisfaction. Three transformational and two transactional factors had significant
relationships with program directors’ level of satisfaction with their leadership skills.
These findings highlight important relationships which may demonstrate factors that
affect how program directors’ leadership skills are utilized to handle their responsibilities.
Two-way ANOVAs conducted to analyze the effect of gender and institution type
on the level of importance of the responsibilities indicated that two-year institutions rated
the responsibility of budget and resources significantly higher than vocational/technical
institutions. Additionally, two-way ANOVAs performed to ascertain the effect of gender
and highest degree completed on program directors’ level of satisfaction with their
leadership skills in relation to their responsibilities demonstrated that program directors
with a PhD or EdD rated their satisfaction with their leadership skills in relation to
department governance higher than baccalaureate prepared program directors. Also,
program directors with a PhD or EdD rated their satisfaction with their leadership skills
for faculty affairs responsibilities higher than masters and baccalaureate prepared
program directors. These findings provide information on the effects of institution types
and level of education on program directors’ responsibilities and leadership skills.
140
Qualitative data indicated that program directors felt that program type had an
influence on the leadership skills they utilized. The skills program directors utilized were
affected by the focus of the institution, environment, administration, and opportunities for
leadership development. Additionally, interview data provided insight into the reasons
for program directors’ rankings of responsibilities. Responsibilities that were currently
requiring attention were rated higher than those that did not need consideration at this
time. The next chapter will provide a discussion of the findings in relation to the
literature.
141
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
the responsibilities. In addition, the leadership styles of program directors were identified
to analyze the role of leadership styles in relation to program directors’ rankings for the
level of importance of their responsibilities and level of satisfaction with their leadership
skills in relation to their responsibilities. This chapter provides a discussion of the
findings of this study in relation to the literature. A summary and interpretation of the
results for each research question is presented. Additionally, implications for practice,
recommendations for future research, and limitations of the study are discussed.
Research Question 1
Which responsibilities are perceived as most important to radiologic technology
program directors?
An examination of the frequencies and mean ratings for each of the
responsibilities was used to answer this question. Responsibilities were rated on Likert
scale (1=low importance to 4=high importance). For this study, a rating of one or two
was considered to indicate a responsibility of low importance and a rating of three or four
to specify a responsibility of high importance to the department. In addition, during
telephone interviews, program directors were asked it they agreed with rating for the
responsibility rated the highest (instruction) and lowest (budget and resources). This
analysis provided some interesting results.
142
First, none of the responsibilities had a mean rating below three, indicating that all
of the responsibilities were of high importance to the department. Thus, program
directors’ perceptions indicate that all of these responsibilities require a great deal of
attention. However, it is significant to remember that these are only program directors’
perceptions. Lucas (1994) suggests that the Leadership Matrix be completed by deans
and faculty as well in order to provide more feedback on the importance of
responsibilities. Since this was not done in this study, these ratings need to viewed
cautiously.
The literature on department chairs’ responsibilities establishes that their role is
multifaceted (Bowman, 2002; Carroll &Wolverton, 2004; Del Favero, 2003; Lucas,
1994; Tucker, 1993; Warren, 1993). Tucker (1993) contends that the responsibilities of
program chairs are increasing. These findings confirm that program directors are facing a
variety of responsibilities which are important to the department. With this type of
situation, it might be difficult to prioritize these responsibilities as well as to develop
leadership skills to effectively handle them. In fact, Warren (1993) emphasized the
difficulty in balancing the competing faculty and administrative roles associated with
these positions. The findings of this study demonstrate that radiologic technology
program directors are faced with a similar situation.
Second, program directors’ responses in interviews to their perceptions of the
ratings for instruction (highest) and budget and resources (lowest) provided an interesting
perspective on how program directors view these responsibilities. While the
responsibility of instruction received the highest rating of importance from the
quantitative data gathered from the Leadership Matrix, during interviews, more than half
of program directors (54%) disagreed with this ranking. These program directors
143
provided a variety of reasons for feeling that it was not their most important
responsibility, such as the complexity of their position and other responsibilities that were
more critical in their department. Again, these responses highlight the contention of the
complexity and ambiguity of the role discussed in the literature (Bowman, 2002; Carroll
&Wolverton, 2004; Del Favero, 2003; Lucas, 1994; Tucker, 1993; Warren, 1993).
Another insight provided by these comments relates to the specific role of
radiologic technology program directors. During interviews, it became apparent that the
role of program directors was different in different settings. This point is also confirmed
in the literature (Lucas, 2000; Seagren, 1993; Tucker, 1993). Seagren (1993) indicated
that the type of institution, discipline, and other institutional variables influence the role
of the department chairs. Program directors discussed how the delineation of their
responsibilities was determined by the structure of the institution. Some program
directors had very heavy teaching loads, while others had more administrative
responsibilities and fewer teaching responsibilities.
For the rankings for the responsibility of budget and resources, program directors
who were interviewed had even more disagreement with the low ranking of this
responsibility, with 62% indicating they disagreed. The program directors who agreed
with the ranking felt that within their institution they had little control over budgeting
issues. Those who disagreed stated that in order for their department to function
successfully it was necessary for them to be effective in handling this responsibility.
Hecht (2004) supports the idea that budget and resources is an important responsibility
for department chairs, suggesting that skills be developed in this area in order for the
department to function effectively. Program director responses maintain this contention.
144
The findings from the quantitative and qualitative data utilized to answer this
research question provide some insight into the importance of program directors’
responsibilities. The quantitative data illustrates a ranking of each of the responsibilities.
However, this alone does not provide a complete vision of the role of program directors.
The qualitative data indicates that the level of importance of the responsibilities is
affected by contextual variables such as institution type and discipline. This is consistent
with the literature (Lucas, 2000; Seagren, 1993;Tucker, 1993). The combination of data
sources presents a more complete understanding of program directors’ responsibilities.
Research Question 2
With which of their leadership skills are radiologic technology program directors
least satisfied?
An inspection of the frequencies and mean ratings for the level of satisfaction of
program directors with their leadership skills in relation to each of the responsibilities
was used to answer this question. Satisfaction was rated on a Likert scale (1=low
satisfaction to 4=high satisfaction). For this study, a rating of one or two was considered
to indicate a low level of satisfaction and a rating of three or four to specify a high level
of satisfaction with leadership skills in relation to the responsibilities. In addition, during
telephone interviews, program directors were asked what job performance skills they
were most and least prepared to handle. This assessment provided a thorough
examination of program directors’ levels of satisfaction with their leadership skills in
relation to the responsibilities.
Similar to the rankings for the importance of the responsibilities, program
directors’ levels of satisfaction with their leadership skills in relation to the
responsibilities received high ratings. In fact, the mean rating for program directors’
145
levels of satisfaction was above three for all of the responsibilities with the exception of
budget and resources (mean=2.93). Thus, program directors’ responses to the Leadership
Matrix indicate a high level of satisfaction with their leadership skills in relation to their
responsibilities. The level of satisfaction with leadership skills for the responsibility of
budget and resources indicates some dissatisfaction with skills. This is not surprising,
since, as Tucker (1993) indicates, most department chairs rise to this position from a
faculty position. Thus, a responsibility such as budget and resources may require skills
that the program director has not had adequate experience to address.
To further explain the quantitative data collected, program directors were asked
about the job performance skills they were most and least prepared to handle. When
asked about skills program directors were most prepared to handle, their responses
indicated that they were satisfied with most, if not all, of their skills. However, when
asked about skills that they were least prepared to handle, many indicated that budget and
resources were their weakest area. Again, Tucker’s (1993) contention that individuals in
these positions come from faculty positions helps to explain why this may be an area of
weakness. Additionally, several program directors indicated that the area of faculty
affairs was a weakness. Specifically, program directors were uncomfortable with conflict
management and disciplining faculty. The literature supports that these skills may be
necessary for department chairs to develop. Bowman (2002) stressed that department
chairs need leadership skills to address problem-solving and conflict resolution. Thus,
radiologic technology program directors’ weaknesses in this area are similar to other
department chairs.
When comparing the quantitative and qualitative data for this research question, it
is evident that the results support one another. For example, the quantitative data
146
indicated that program directors were satisfied with most of their leadership skills in
relation to the responsibilities. Only one responsibility (budget and resources) had a
mean below three. Additionally, interviews maintain this finding. Program directors
indicated in interviews that they were indeed satisfied with their leadership skills,
particularly in the areas of instruction and department governance. These are also two of
the top three rated from the quantitative data. Similarly, during interviews, program
directors indicated that they were least satisfied with their leadership skills in terms of
budget and resources and faculty affairs. Again, these were the two lowest rated in the
quantitative data. In this instance, the quantitative and qualitative data complemented
each other and the qualitative data provided more understanding in particular
circumstances in which their leadership skills needed improvement.
The Leadership Matrix involves two rankings of each of the responsibilities
(Lucas, 1994). One ranking is in terms of program directors’ levels of importance of the
responsibilities and the other ranking is program directors’ levels of satisfaction with
their leadership skills in relation to the responsibilities. Responsibilities in quadrant A
should be prioritized for leadership development (see Figure 1). Those in quadrant B are
areas for the department chair to maintain their expertise. Responsibilities in quadrant C
are secondary areas of leadership development since they are less important to the
department. And, quadrant D depicts areas of little importance to the department, but
that are strengths of the department chair. In terms of the location of these rankings on
the Leadership Matrix, only one responsibility would fall in quadrant A. The
responsibility of budget and resources was rated as important to the department, but also
an area in which many program directors indicated that they needed improvement. The
147
rest of the responsibilities were located in quadrant B, and, therefore, could be identified
as areas that the department chair should maintain expertise.
Another intriguing finding from this data is the similarity in the rankings for level
of importance of the responsibilities and the level of satisfaction of program directors
with their leadership skills in relation to the responsibilities. A comparison of the
rankings demonstrates that responsibilities that program directors rated as most important
to their departments were also the leadership skills with which program directors were
most satisfied. This is consistent with the findings of Carroll and Gmelch (1994).
Radiologic technology program directors viewed their satisfaction with their leadership
skills similar to other department chairs.
This study also expanded on possible reasons for the similarities in these rankings
by asking program directors during interviews to suggest potential causes. Overall,
program directors indicated that this was due to human nature. Program directors
suggested that it was natural for someone to rate something that they felt more skilled at
performing as more important than something they felt less skilled. Program directors
also implied that this was due to experience. These program directors asserted that, when
a responsibility is important to a department, the department chair will have a lot of
experience in developing skills and addressing these responsibilities. Therefore, their
skills in addressing these responsibilities will naturally be more advanced.
Program Directors’ Leadership Styles
Data from the MLQ (5x-short) and interview data were used to assess program
directors’ leadership styles. The MLQ (5x-short) is scored on a Likert scale (0=not at all
to 4=frequently if not always). The means for the transformational variables were all
above three, indicating that program directors used these leadership skills fairly often to
148
frequently, if not always. Bass (1998) indicates that an optimal leader will rarely display
laissez faire leadership, moderately display transactional leadership, and most often
demonstrate transformational leadership. To further this contention, Bass and Avolio
(1999) suggest that ideal ratings for the transformational variables should be greater than
three. Radiologic technology program directors meet this benchmark. For the
transactional variables, Bass and Avolio indicate that for contingent reward the rating be
greater than two; for management by exception (active) less than 1.5; and management
by exception (passive) less than one. Program directors in this study had a mean for
contingent reward of 3.26 which meets the criteria of Bass and Avolio. For management
by exception (active), program directors had a mean rating of 1.78 which exceeds the
benchmark set by Bass and Avolio. This rating was higher than what is considered ideal
for a leader. However, management by exception (passive) had a rating of 1.0 which met
the benchmark. Finally, for laissez-faire leadership the mean was 0.53 and Bass and
Avolio suggest this rating be lower than 1.0. Radiologic technology program directors,
as a group, met the ideal ratings for leaders on all subscales of the MLQ with the
exception of management by exception (active). Bass (1995) indicated that
transformational leaders are not rare and can be found in any organization. And, in fact,
program directors were primarily transformational leaders, and utilized contingent reward
behaviors as well. These results were similar to those found by Shaver (2003). In his
study of program directors of associate degree programs, results demonstrated that
program directors were most often transformational and sometimes transactional.
Bass (1995) indicated that leaders should use both transformational and
transactional leadership approaches to be most effective. Analysis of the data from the
MLQ (5x-short) would indicate that program directors do employ both types of
149
leadership. Additionally, Lucas (2000) asserts that transformational leadership is an
appropriate style to adopt for department chairs. Additionally, Shaver (2003) found that
the transformational leadership factors were significant indicators of program director
effectiveness, faculty satisfaction, faculty willingness to exert extra effort, and the
American Registry of Radiologic Technologist pass rate. Since the majority of radiologic
technology program directors utilize this type of leadership, they are in a position to use
skills that will be effective for their role.
Interviews were used to confirm the findings from the MLQ (5x-short) and to
expound on program directors’ personal leadership styles. Program directors who were
identified as transformational from the quantitative data also described their leadership
styles in terms of transformational characteristics during interviews. Additionally, most
program directors who were identified as transactional depicted their leadership styles in
terms of transactional characteristics. The one exception was a program director who had
a high transactional score, but also a high transformational score. This program director
expressed his leadership style in terms of transformational characteristics. As suggested
by Berson (1999), the interviews verified the findings of the MLQ (5x-short) and
provided a rich description of program directors’ leadership styles.
Research Question 3
How well does leadership style explain program directors’ perceived level of
style explained program directors’ perceived levels of importance of their
responsibilities. These analyses revealed that leadership style was a significant indicator
in explaining program directors’ ratings for the level of importance for the
150
and resources, and professional development. Specifically, transformational leadership
was identified as a factor in explaining the ratings of these responsibilities. However,
these regression models did not account for the majority of the variance. In fact, the most
variance accounted for in any of these models was the model for professional
development at 13.1%. Therefore, there are other contributing factors to program
directors’ ratings of the responsibilities that are not identified in this analysis. While
transformational leadership does have a significant positive relation for the ratings of
some of the responsibilities, this factor alone does not explain the ratings.
Research Question 3a
How well do inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individual
consideration, idealized influence (behavior), idealized influence (attributed)
(transformational factors) explain program directors’ perceived level of importance of
their responsibilities?
Multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine how well the individual
transformational factors explained program directors’ perceived levels of importance of
their responsibilities. Interestingly, the responsibilities identified in this analysis were not
identical to the responsibilities identified in the previous analysis. The responsibilities of
instruction, external communication, budget and resources, office management, and
professional development demonstrated significant relationships with the
transformational variables. This suggests that the level of importance of the
responsibilities is viewed differently by leaders with different transformational
characteristics. Specifically, evaluation of the beta weights for the transformational
variables indicated that idealized influence (behavior) had a significant relationship in
151
program directors’ ratings of the responsibilities of external communication, budget and
resources, office management, and professional development. Inspirational motivation
had a significant relationship with the responsibilities of budget and resources and
professional development. Intellectual stimulation was significantly positively related to
external communication, and individualized consideration was significantly related to the
responsibilities of instruction and student affairs. Again, these analyses only accounted
for a small portion of the variance. The regression equation for professional development
provided for the largest explanation of the variance, accounting for 15.9%. Therefore,
there is a considerable amount of the variance that is not accounted for by the
transformational leadership factors. Thus, other factors should be explored to expand our
understanding of program directors’ ratings of the importance of the responsibilities.
Research Question 3b
How well do contingent reward, active management by exception, and passive
management by exception (transactional factors) explain program directors’ perceived
level of importance of their responsibilities?
transactional factors explained program directors’ perceived levels of importance of their
responsibilities. For these analyses all of the responsibilities were identified as having a
significant relationship with the transactional variables. Specifically, contingent reward
was identified as having a significant relationship with all of the responsibilities, and
management by exception (passive) had a significant negative relationship with the
responsibility of department governance. Once again, the variance accounted for by each
of these models was small. In fact, the largest was the model for the responsibility of
professional development, accounting for 7.7% of the variance. Therefore, other
152
variables not included in this analysis might provide a more clear explanation of program
directors’ rankings of the responsibilities.
Research Question 4
How well do leadership style, discipline of highest degree, program type, and
years of experience as a program director explain the level of satisfaction with program
style, discipline of highest degree, program type, and years of experience as a program
director explained program directors’ levels of satisfaction with their leadership skills as
related to the responsibilities. All of the regression models were significant for
explaining program directors’ levels of satisfaction with their leadership skills.
Additional analysis of the beta weights of the individual variables demonstrated some
interesting relationships. First, years of experience of program directors was positively
related to program directors’ levels of satisfaction with their leadership skills in relation
to the responsibilities of department governance, instruction, faculty affairs, and budget
and resources. This relationship indicates that as program directors become more
experienced in their position, their satisfaction with their leadership skills increases. This
suggests that the leadership skills related to these responsibilities can be developed over
time. Additionally, new program directors may need time to develop these leadership
skills and increase their satisfaction with their skills.
Second, transformational leadership was positively related to program directors’
levels of satisfaction with all of the responsibilities excluding office management.
Therefore, transformational leaders were more satisfied with their skills in terms of all of
the responsibilities with the exception of office management. Additionally, laissez faire
153
leadership had a negative relationship with program directors’ levels of satisfaction with
all of the responsibilities not including professional development. Thus, as laissez faire
leadership increases, program directors’ satisfaction with their leadership skills decreases.
This is an important relationship because it indicates that this leadership style is
dissatisfying to leaders in handling the vast majority of their responsibilities.
The regression models of program directors’ levels of satisfaction with their
leadership skills in relation to the responsibilities accounted for slightly more of the
variance than the models used to explain program directors’ ratings of the level of
importance of the responsibilities. The model which examined the level of satisfaction in
relation to the responsibility of external communication accounted for the greatest
amount of the variance, with 17.7% explained by the model. However, there are still
factors that are not accounted for in the model.
Research Question 4a
How well do inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individual
consideration, idealized influence (behavior), idealized influence (attributed)
(transformational factors) explain the level of satisfaction with program directors’
leadership skills as related to their responsibilities?
transformational factors explained program directors’ levels of satisfaction with their
leadership skills in relation to the responsibilities. These analyses indicated a significant
relationship with program directors’ levels of satisfaction with their leadership skills in
relation to all of the responsibilities except office management. Specifically,
inspirational motivation had a significant positive relationship with program directors’
levels of satisfaction with their leadership skills in relation to the responsibilities of
154
department governance, instruction, student affairs, external communication and
professional development. Idealized influence (attributed) had a significant positive
relation to the responsibilities of department governance, instruction, external
communication, budget and resources, and office management. Finally, individualized
consideration had a significant positive relationship with program directors’ levels of
satisfaction with their leadership skills in relation to the responsibility of instruction.
These results would suggest that transformational leadership, and, specifically,
inspirational motivation and idealized influence (attributed) had the greatest effect on
program directors’ levels of satisfaction with their leadership skills. However, the
variance accounted for by these models was still relatively small indicating that there is
still much to be understood in relation to program directors’ levels of satisfaction with
their leadership skills.
Research Question 4b
How well do contingent reward, management by exception (active), and
management by exception (passive) (transactional factors) explain the level of
satisfaction with program directors’ leadership skills as related to their responsibilities?
transactional factors explained program directors’ levels of satisfaction with their
leadership skills in relation to the responsibilities. All of the regression models were
significant in explaining program directors’ levels of satisfaction with their leadership
skills in relation to their responsibilities. The transactional factor of contingent reward
had a significant positive relationship with program directors’ levels of satisfaction for all
of the responsibilities excluding office management. Thus, program directors with higher
155
contingent reward scores were more satisfied with their leadership skills. The
transactional factor of management by exception (passive) had a significant negative
relation to the responsibilities of instruction, external communication, office
management, and professional development. Therefore, program directors who utilize
this style of leadership are more likely to be dissatisfied with their leadership skills in
relation to these responsibilities. These findings suggest that contingent reward would be
a useful leadership style to utilize to increase satisfaction with leadership skills, while
management by exception (passive) would lead to dissatisfaction.
Research Question 5
Does the level of importance of the responsibilities vary based on gender,
institution type (hospital, 2 year, 4 year, or vocational/technical), or among institution
types as a function of gender?
The literature on program chairs’ responsibilities suggests that setting or
institution type can affect the responsibilities of a program chair (Lucas, 2000; Seagren,
1993; Tucker, 1993). To explore this relationship for this study, a series of 2 (gender) by
4 (institution type) ANOVAs with the level of importance of each of the responsibilities
were conducted. A significant relationship with institution type was found for the level
of importance of the responsibilities of faculty affairs and budget and resources.
However, only the post hoc analysis for the level of importance of the responsibility of
budget and resources revealed a significant difference. For this responsibility, two-year
institutions rated this responsibility as more important than vocational/technical
institutions. These results would indicate that gender does not seem to have any effect on
the level of importance of the responsibilities. Similar to other authors’ contentions that
156
institution type affects program chairs’ responsibilities (Lucas, 2000; Seagren, 1993;
Tucker, 1993) this study demonstrated a relationship. However, institution type was
shown to have very little effect based on this analysis.
Research Question 6
Does the level of satisfaction with program directors’ leadership skills as related
to their responsibilities vary based on gender, highest degree completed (baccalaureate,
masters, or PhD, EdD), or among highest degree completed as a function of gender?
A series of 2 (gender) by 3 (highest degree completed) ANOVAs with program
directors’ level of satisfaction with their leadership skills in relation to each of the
responsibilities were conducted. A significant relationship for highest degree completed
and program directors’ satisfaction with their leadership skills in relation to the
responsibilities of department governance, faculty affairs, and professional development
was identified. The post hoc analysis for the responsibility of professional development
did not reveal any significant differences between the highest degree completed.
However, significant differences were identified for the responsibilities of department
governance and faculty affairs. Specifically, program directors with a PhD or EdD
degree rated their satisfaction with their leadership skills in relation to the responsibility
of department governance higher than program directors with a baccalaureate degree.
Additionally, program directors with the PhD and EdD also rated their satisfaction with
their leadership skills in relation to the responsibility of faculty affairs higher than both
masters and baccalaureate prepared program directors. These results suggest that PhD
and EdD programs may help in developing skills related to the responsibilities of
department governance and faculty affairs. Thus, these program directors are then more
satisfied with their leadership skills in these areas.
157
Research Question 7
How does program type influence the leadership skills utilized by radiologic
technology program directors?
Qualitative data from telephone interviews with program directors was evaluated
to answer this research question. Program directors overwhelmingly agreed that program
type influenced the leadership skills that they utilized. The reasons that were cited by
program directors were varied, but seemed to focus on contextual variables. For
example, some program directors felt that the focus of programs differed based on
program type. These directors felt that hospital based programs had more of a clinical
focus and associate and baccalaureate programs had an academic focus. Additionally,
degree programs offer different interactions for program directors. In these institutions,
program directors have the opportunity to interact with faculty from other disciplines.
This interaction provides them with an exchange of ideas that can aid in the development
of their leadership skills. Finally, program directors at hospital based programs felt they
had more flexibility in leading their programs. This was primarily due to the fact that
they were the only individuals within the department who dealt with education issues.
These findings are indicative of the variance due to program setting suggested by
literature (Lucas, 2000; Seagren, 1993; Tucker, 1993).
Another important influence on the leadership skills utilized by program directors
was administration. Several program directors discussed the effect that their
administration had on their leadership style. These program directors indicated that the
leadership style of the administration impacted the leadership skills they were able to
develop and the skills they utilized. If their administration allowed the program director
to have more responsibility, they were able to develop their leadership skills in these
158
areas of responsibility. If they were not given as much control, this hampered their
leadership development. This is consistent with Gmelch’s (2004) contention that it is
necessary for there to be application of the leadership skills program directors learn. If
program directors are not given opportunities to use their leadership skills, it will be
difficult for them to improve. Carroll and Wolverton (2004) reiterate this point by
indicating that, in order for department chairs to improve, they need occasions to serve in
a variety of roles.
Research Question 8
Why have the responsibilities that have been identified as very important to the
department received those rankings?
Qualitative data from interviews with program directors were analyzed to answer
this research question. This evaluation revealed that contextual variables were what
affected the level of importance of the responsibilities. This is reiterated in the literature
(Lucas, 2000; Seagren, 1993; Tucker, 1993). For example, Tucker (1993) believed that
the responsibilities of program directors will vary depending on the setting. An
illustration of this point from the interviews was provided by program directors when
discussing their responsibilities with budget and resources. Some program directors who
indicated that this was not an important aspect of their position felt this way because their
position did not allow them to make decisions in regard to this area. However, other
program directors who did feel this was an important responsibility indicated that they
had a great deal of responsibility in making decisions that would affect the budget and
resources of their department. The delineation of responsibilities within the institution
dictates which responsibilities over which program directors have direct control.
159
In addition to the context of the institution, contextual variables within the
profession also affected the ranking of the responsibilities. For example, several program
directors discussed the impact of changing technology on instruction. Indeed, Sparks and
Greathouse (2001) designated technology as an important factor with which programs
must contend. As technology changes, programs are forced to examine the curriculum
and clinical experiences to ensure that adjustments are made to address the
transformations. Currently, radiologic technology is facing a major evolution in terms of
technology. The profession is going from an environment that was based on film and
imaging characteristics associated with this medium to a film-less system that is based on
computer technology. Not only are program directors faced with teaching the new
technology, but also with learning it themselves. This was reflected in several of the
program directors’ comments. Thus, the context of the profession also affects the
responsibilities that program directors deem as most important.
Miller and Seagren (1997) indicated that department chairs would benefit by
focusing on program relevance as a method to decrease stress. This point would serve
program directors well in handling technological changes. Outdated technology becomes
less relevant in the work environment. By keeping the curriculum current in terms of
technology, they are also decreasing their stress in this area. Graduates’ skills are then
more appropriate in the practice environment.
Implications for Practice
This research has implications for theory and practice related to the
responsibilities of program chairs and their leadership styles. Transformational
leadership has been studied in relationship to leader effectiveness (Harter & Bass, 1988;
Lowe & Galen Kroeck, 1996), follower satisfaction and trust (Podasakoff, MacKenzie, &
160
Bommer, 1996; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990), and personality traits
(Judge & Bono, 2000; Ross & Offerman, 1997). Shaver (2003) studied transformational
leadership in relation to radiologic technology program directors’ effectiveness, faculty
satisfaction, and program outcomes. Additionally, there have been studies of department
chairs in relation to their responsibilities (Gmelch & Carroll, 1994; Lucas, 1994; Tucker,
1993), satisfaction with leadership skills (Gmelch & Carroll, 1994; Lucas, 1994), and
stressors (Gmelch, 1991; Gmelch & Burns, 1993). In terms of combining
transformational leadership and department chair responsibilities, Lucas (2000) suggests
this leadership style would be useful for department chairs to adopt. However, there are
no studies linking the effect of transformational leadership in how department chairs view
their responsibilities and their satisfaction with their leadership skills in relation to the
responsibilities. This study contributes to the research by examining these relationships.
In this section, a modified conceptual map will be presented based on the findings
from this study. The use of the MLQ in this study and the implications for future studies
will be discussed. Additionally, discussion will be given related to the importance of the
responsibilities and program directors’ satisfaction with their leadership skills related to
the responsibilities. Finally, areas for professional development of program directors’
leadership skills will be offered.
Modified Conceptual Map
This study was guided by the conceptual map presented in chapter two (see
Figure 2). This conceptual map was created based on the literature and hypotheses. The
results of this study support a modified conceptual map (see Figure 4). In relation to the
factors affecting the importance of the responsibilities, gender was not demonstrated to
have a significant relationship. For the factors affecting program directors’ satisfaction
161
with their leadership skills in relation to the responsibilities, the results of this study did
not indicate that gender, program type, or institution type had significant relationships
with program directors’ satisfaction. Additionally, since the analyses only accounted for
a small portion of the variance, there are other factors which may have significance that
are not examined in this study.
Responsibilities
Importance of Satisfaction with

Responsibilities Leadership Skills
Leadership Leadership
Style Style
Institution Years of
Type Experience
Program Highest Degree

Type Completed
Figure 4: Modified conceptual map of program director responsibilities
The MLQ
For this study, program directors provided self-ratings of their leadership styles by
completing the MLQ Form 5x-Short. The directions for this instrument instruct
individuals completing the form to leave items blank that are irrelevant or if they are not
sure of the answer. There were three items that were left blank most frequently. The
number of individuals leaving these items blank ranged from twelve to nineteen. Two of
162
the items were designed to measure transactional leadership (contingent reward and
management by exception [active]) and the other measured transformational leadership
(idealized influence [attributed]). Some of the participants indicated that it was difficult
for them to judge themselves on these items or that they were uncomfortable with the
wording of the item. Participants not completing these items may have found it
problematic or awkward to rate themselves either high or low on these items. However,
if other individuals were asked to rate the program director on these items, there may
have been fewer items left incomplete. Many times it is more difficult to rate oneself on
leadership skills than for others to rate the leadership skills of a leader.
There have been suggestions that researchers utilize additional methods to
confirm the findings of surveys (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Avolio,
Bass, & Jung, 1999). The results of this study highlight the importance of this
recommendation. The MLQ provided information related to the leadership styles of the
program directors. However, it did not explain why a leader utilized a particular style or
in what situations. These situational components of transformational leadership could be
better examined through qualitative inquiry. During interviews with program directors, it
was apparent that their roles were complex. Due to the numerous responsibilities with
which program directors are faced, it is reasonable to believe that different leadership
styles might be utilized in various situations. For example, the leadership style that a
program director uses in a conflict management situation with faculty members may be
very different than those applied when mentoring students.
Another interesting aspect demonstrated in this study is the conflict between the
data obtained from the MLQ and interviews with program directors. Specifically, when
program directors were asked to describe their leadership style, some provided an
163
account that appeared differed from the scores on the MLQ. The MLQ gives scores on
transformational, transactional, and laissez faire leadership. A leader who has a high
transactional score might also have a high transformational score. This fact offers an
explanation for these apparent conflicts. For example, leaders that were identified as
transactional by the MLQ might also have a high transformational score. Therefore,
when these program directors were asked to describe their leadership style, the
explanation supplied might focus more on their transformational characteristics than
transactional. This emphasizes the complex nature of leadership and the situational
factors that affect it.
Level of Importance of Responsibilities
This study demonstrated that program directors’ rankings of the levels of
importance of the responsibilities was affected by leadership style, institution type, and
program type. The relationship between leadership style and the level of importance of
the responsibilities has not been previously studied. Thus, this finding adds to the
literature on program chairs’ responsibilities and transformational leadership in addition
to radiologic technology program directors in specific.
In examining the relationship between program directors’ leadership styles,
transformational leadership was positively associated with the rankings of several
responsibilities (department governance, instruction, external communication, budget and
resources, and professional development). Further inspection reveals that some of the
individual transformational factors (idealized influence [behavior], inspirational
motivation, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation) and transactional
factors (contingent reward and management by exception [passive]) were related to
program directors’ rankings of the responsibilities. These findings suggest that different
164
leadership styles may view the importance of responsibilities differently. The emphasis
the leader assigns to the responsibilities can affect the focus of a department. For
example, if transformational leaders view budget and resources as more critical to a
department, then this area will receive more attention than an area such as faculty affairs,
which is not associated with transformational leadership. However, since the
relationships identified were small, accounting for only a portion of the variance, the
effect of leadership style alone may not be significant in determining program directors’
value of the responsibilities.
Several authors have indicated that the setting or institution type will affect
department chairs’ responsibilities (Lucas, 2000; Seagren, 1993; Tucker, 1993). This
study identified findings from both qualitative and quantitative data to support this
contention. The quantitative data provided minimal confirmation of the relationship
between institution type and department chairs’ responsibilities. In fact, the only
difference found was between two year institutions and vocational/technical institutions
in their ranking of the importance of budget and resources. Two year institutions rated
this responsibility higher than did vocational/technical institutions. However, the
qualitative data substantiated this assertion more strongly. Due to the differing focus of
the various program types and institutions, program directors’ responsibilities were
influenced. For example, program directors discussed that in hospital based programs the
concentration was more likely on clinical aspects, whereas degree programs were more
likely to have a heavier emphasis on academics. This dissimilarity leads program
directors to rate their responsibilities according to their particular situation. Thus,
program type and institution type can have an affect on the importance of their
responsibilities.
165
Program Directors’ Satisfaction with Leadership Skills Related to Responsibilities
This study demonstrated that program directors’ rankings of their level of
satisfaction with their leadership skills in relation to the responsibilities was affected by
leadership style, years of experience, and highest degree completed. The relationship of
these variables with satisfaction of leadership skills has not been examined in the
literature. These findings add to the literature on department chairs’ satisfaction with
their leadership skills and provides some guidance in leadership development.
Lucas (1994) indicates that identifying department chairs’ levels of satisfaction
with their leadership skills in relation to their responsibilities helps to prioritize areas for
leadership development. This study carried this one step further by examining the
relationship of leadership style, years of experience, gender, highest degree completed,
program type and institution type on radiologic technology program directors’ levels of
satisfaction with their leadership skills in relation to their responsibilities. Leadership
style was one of the variables that was identified as having an effect on program
directors’ levels of satisfaction with their leadership skills in relation to the
responsibilities. Transformational leadership was positively related to program directors’
satisfaction with their leadership skills in relation to all of the responsibilities except
office management. Further, the individual transformational factors had positive
relationships with the satisfaction ratings for all of the responsibilities except faculty
affairs. For the transactional factors, contingent reward was positively related to
leadership satisfaction for all responsibilities except office management and management
by exception (passive) had a negative relationship with satisfaction in relationship to the
responsibilities of instruction, external communication, office management, and
professional development. Finally, laissez faire leadership had a negative relationship
166
with satisfaction ratings in relation to all of the responsibilities except professional
development.
Examining these results as a whole, it is evident that transformational and
contingent reward behaviors are associated with higher levels of satisfaction with
leadership skills in relation to all of the responsibilities except office management.
Therefore, utilizing these types of leadership would lead to increased satisfaction with
leadership skills in relation to the responsibilities of program directors. Conversely,
laissez faire and management by exception (passive) demonstrate a negative relationship
with program directors’ levels of satisfaction with their leadership skills. Thus, using
these types of behaviors would lead to lower levels of satisfaction. Program directors
who employ these behaviors should consider improving their transformational and
contingent reward behaviors in order to increase their satisfaction with their leadership
skills in relation to their responsibilities.
Another relationship identified by this study was between the years of experience
of program directors and their level of satisfaction with their leadership skills in relation
to the responsibilities of department governance, instruction, faculty affairs, and budget
and resources. This connection indicates that, as program directors become more
experienced, their satisfaction is likely to increase in regard to these responsibilities. This
suggests that program directors learn valuable leadership skills which help them to
become more satisfied. What is not evident is how they learn these skills. This study did
not identify how these skills are developed by program directors.
Similar to the relationship with years of experience and program directors’ levels
of satisfaction with their leadership skills, the highest degree completed by program
directors demonstrated a link with satisfaction with leadership skills in relation to the
167
responsibilities of department governance and faculty affairs. For the responsibility of
department governance, program directors with a PhD or EdD rated their satisfaction
with their leadership skills higher than baccalaureate prepared program directors.
Additionally, for the responsibility of faculty affairs, program directors with a PhD or
EdD had higher satisfaction with their leadership skills than masters and baccalaureate
prepared program directors. This finding suggests that formal education can enhance
program directors’ levels of satisfaction with some of their leadership skills. Therefore,
obtaining a higher degree is one avenue that can be utilized to increase satisfaction with
leadership skills.
Importance of Responsibilities vs. Satisfaction with Leadership Skills
In a study of department chairs, Carroll and Gmelch (1994) indicated that
department chairs identified duties in which they were most effective as the duties that
were most important to the department. A similar finding was identified in this study in
the rankings for level of importance of the responsibilities and the level of satisfaction of
program directors with their leadership skills in relation to the responsibilities. A
comparison of the rankings demonstrated that the responsibilities which program
directors rated as most important to their departments were also the leadership skills with
which program directors were most satisfied. Radiologic technology program directors
viewed their satisfaction with their leadership skills similar to other department chairs.
This study also expanded on possible explanations for the similarities in these
rankings during interviews with program directors. Overall, program directors indicated
that this connection was due to human nature. The program directors suggested that it
was normal human behavior for someone to rate a responsibility that they felt more
skilled at performing higher than those at which they felt less skilled. Program directors
168
also implied that the relationship between the rankings was due to increased experience.
For example, a responsibility which is important to a department will require more
attention from the department chair. Thus, this will give the department chair more
experience in that area, and, therefore, the chair will develop skills to address these
responsibilities. Program directors’ skills in handling these responsibilities will naturally
be more advanced from the increased experience.
Areas for Professional Development
Lucas (1994) suggested that the ratings from the Leadership Matrix be used to
identify and prioritize areas for leadership skills development. This can be done by
analyzing the rankings of the importance of responsibilities to a department and the level
of satisfaction with leadership skills in relation to the responsibilities. Using these
ratings, responsibilities fall into different quadrants on the Leadership Matrix.
Responsibilities in quadrant A should be prioritized for leadership development, since
they are important to the department and are areas of weakness for the department chair.
Those in quadrant B are areas that are important for the department and in which the
chair has expertise. Responsibilities in quadrant C are secondary areas of leadership
development, since they are less important to the department, but are weaknesses of the
department chair. And, quadrant D depicts areas of little importance to the department,
but that are strengths of the department chair. The ratings from program directors in this
study indicated that all responsibilities fell in quadrant B with the exception of budget
and resources, which was in quadrant A (see Figure 5). Thus, budget and resources is an
area in need of professional development for radiologic technology program directors.
Another responsibility identified as needing professional development in this study was
that of faculty affairs. While the quantitative data still rated this in quadrant B, it was the
169
second lowest satisfaction rating. Additionally, qualitative data distinguished this as an
area of weakness of program directors. Specifically, program directors commented on
the need for more conflict management skills in dealing with faculty. It is interesting to
note that Hecht (2004) suggested three areas of skill development for department chairs:
working with groups, making decisions, and budget and resources. The findings of this
study support these areas for leadership skill development.
4 A B
Budget and resources Department governance

Instruction
3 Faculty affairs
Importance to the Department
Student affairs
External communication
Office management
Professional development
2 C D
1 2 3 4
Satisfaction with Skill Development
Figure 5: Leadership matrix of program directors’ responsibilities
Gmelch (2004) recommends that department chairs acquire leadership skills
through lectures and workshops. Additionally, it is necessary for there to be an
opportunity for application of the skills after they are learned. Not surprisingly, program
170
directors in this study indicated that they would prefer to learn leadership skills through
lectures and workshops. Also, many program directors stated that they needed occasions
to apply the skills they learned as well. This study identified budget and resources and
faculty affairs as areas for professional development for program directors, and
determined that workshops or lectures would be the best format for developing these
leadership skills.
Recommendations for Further Study
There are several areas that can be suggested for future research based on this
study, First, this study utilized a sequential mixed model design with quantitative data
collected from the MLQ and Leadership Matrix in the first portion of the study. The
initial data analysis of the quantitative data was used to create questions for the
interviews conducted in the second portion of the study. Interestingly, not all of the
qualitative data supported the findings from the quantitative data. This occurred in
reference to the level of importance to the responsibilities to the program and the
descriptions of program directors’ leadership styles. Although the quantitative data
indicated that instruction was the most important responsibility and budget and resources
was the least important, interview data did not support this contention. This highlights
the nature of the role of program directors. Program directors will view their
responsibilities differently based on their setting. Also, during interviews, program
directors who were identified as transactional did not always describe their leadership
style in terms of a transactional leader. This demonstrates that leaders are not completely
transformational or transactional. They vary on each of these dimensions and utilize both
types of leadership in different situations. These discrepancies illustrate the complexity
of leadership and the roles of radiologic technology program directors. Future research
171
could explore these findings in greater detail. In addition to this recommendation, the
following are presented as other recommendations for future research:
1. Further study into the roles of program directors and the factors that affect their
roles should be conducted. This would provide a better understanding of the
responsibilities of program directors and the contextual variables that affect their
roles.
2. This study could be replicated to examine department chairs in other disciplines to
see if the results would be similar.
3. Other studies could be conducted to include additional variables which might
affect the rankings of the responsibilities and satisfaction with leadership skills in
relation to the responsibilities.
4. Another study could be performed to include ratings from other faculty and
administration.
5. Additional studies utilizing qualitative methods should be carried out to determine
other factors affecting radiologic technology program directors.
6. More qualitative research should be conducted in relation to transformational and
transactional leadership to confirm and supplement findings from quantitative
sources.
7. Additional analyses should be conducted to further explore the relationship
between leadership style and gender.
8. The effects of contextual variables (such as program type or institution type) on
leadership style could be examined more closely. More qualitative inquiry could
provide a better understanding of how these variables affect the leadership style
utilized by a leader.
172
9. More investigation into the need for conflict management skills for program
directors should be considered. During interviews, several program directors
mentioned this as a skill they would like to develop. More exploration into
conflict management and the types of situations that program directors want to
address would be useful.
Limitations of the Study
There are several limitations to this study. The primary limitation is the use of
program directors’ self-perceptions in measuring their leadership styles and the level of
importance of the responsibilities to the department, and their level of satisfaction with
their leadership skills in relation to the responsibilities. Since the quantitative data
collected was self-reports from program directors, it only represents their perspective of
their responsibilities and leadership styles. Therefore, it is conceivable that faculty or
other administrators view the responsibilities and leadership styles differently.
The reliability of the MLQ for this study is also a limitation. The
transformational variables’ reliabilities ranged from 0.512 to 0.747. For the
transformational variables, only inspirational motivation was above a 0.70 reliability.
The transactional variables’ reliabilities ranged from 0.447 to 0.749. Only the
transactional variable of management by exception (active) was above the 0.70 threshold.
Finally, the reliability for laissez faire leadership was 0.505. These differed from the 0.74
to 0.94 reliabilities found by Bass and Avolio (2000). The low reliabilities for this study
were due to the fact that they were based on self-ratings, while the reliabilities reported
by Bass and Avolio were based on others evaluating the leader.
Additionally, since only program directors from JRCERT accredited programs
were included in the study, program directors from other programs were not represented.
173
However, the number of programs not accredited by the JRCERT should not be large,
and their responsibilities are expected to be similar to those of program directors of
JRCERT accredited programs.
Conclusion
the responsibilities. This goal was met, and areas for leadership development were
identified. Specifically, radiologic technology program directors identified faculty affairs
and budget and resources as weaknesses. This study also found that workshops or
lectures were the preferred format for program directors to learn leadership skills. This
information can be used to create targeted leadership development activities for program
directors to increase their skills in these areas.
Another purpose of this study was to identify the leadership styles of program
directors and to analyze the role of leadership styles in relation to program directors’
rankings for the level of importance of their responsibilities and level of satisfaction with
their leadership skills in relation to their responsibilities. This goal was also met, and the
findings add to the understanding of department chairs’ responsibilities and leadership
styles. The relationship of leadership style was identified for program directors’ ratings
of the level of importance of their responsibilities and their level of satisfaction with their
leadership skills in relation to the responsibilities. Additionally, other variables were
identified as having a role in the ratings. Specifically, program type and institution type
were related to the level of importance of the responsibilities, and years of experience and
highest degree completed were associated with program directors’ level of satisfaction
174
with their leadership skills in relation to the responsibilities. While these were significant
relationships, this study leaves room for exploring other relationships. The connections
identified only partially explained program directors’ ratings. More research to further
examine other relationships would provide a better understanding of the responsibilities
and leadership skills of program directors and department chairs.
175
REFERENCES
Abrams, L. (1999). Overcoming barriers to clinical education/training reform.

Proceedings of the Pioneering Allied Health Clinical Education Reform National
Consensus Conference, 28-39.
American Society of Radiologic Technologists. (2004a). Consumer assurance of

radiologic excellence. Available: https://www.asrt.org/asrt.htm
American Society of Radiologic Technologists. (2004b). Who are radiologic

technologists? Available: https://www.asrt.org/asrt.htm
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An
examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261-295.
Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2002). The full range leadership theory: The way forward.
In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic
leadership: The road ahead (pp. 3-33). Boston: Elsevier Science.
Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (2000). Leadership reconsidered: Engaging higher

education in social change. Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellogg Foundation.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in

organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of
analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational
leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 6 (2), 199-218.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-
462.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership
training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81 (6), 827-832.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The
Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership theory, research, and
managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1995). Theory of transformational leadership redux. Leadership Quarterly,

6 (4), 463-478.
176
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm
transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52 (2),
130-139.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational

impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Training Full Range Leadership. Redwood City,
CA: Mindgarden, Inc.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Multifactor leadership questionnaire sampler set
(2nd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden, Inc.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Atwater, L. (1996). The transformational and transactional
leadership of men and women. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45
(1), 5-34.
Bensimon, E. M., Neumann, A., & Birnbaum, R. (2000). Higher education and
leadership theory. In M. C. Brown (Ed.), Organization and governance in higher
education, (5th ed. pp. 214-222). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Berson, Y. (1999). A comprehensive assessment of leadership using triangulation of

qualitative and quantitative methods. (UMI No. 9927942)
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Boas, S. (1999). An evaluation of the conceptual weaknesses in transformational and

charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10 (2) 285-306.
Bowman, R. F. (2002). The real work of department chairs. Clearing House, 75 (3),
158-162.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2005). Household data annual averages. Retrieved June 14,
2005 from: http://stats.bls.gov/cps/home/htm#annual
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass’s (1985)
conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 80 (4), 468-478.
Carless, S. A. (1998). Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination

of superior, leader, and subordinate perspectives. Sex Roles, 39 (11/12), 887-902.
177
Carroll, J. B., & Gmelch, W. H. (1994). Department chairs’ perceptions of the relative
importance of their duties. Journal for Higher Education Management, 10 (1),
49-63.
Carroll, J. B., & Wolverton, M. (2004). Who becomes a chair? New Directions for
Higher Education, 126, 3-10.
Conger, J. A. (1998). Qualitative leadership as the cornerstone methodology for

understanding leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 9 (1), 107-122.
Del Favero, M. (2003). Faculty-administrator relationships as integral to high-

performing governance systems. American Behavioral Scientist, 46 (7), 902-922.
Diamond, R. M., Gardiner, L. F., & Wheeler, D. W. (2002). Requisites for sustainable
institutional change. In R. M. Diamond (Ed.), Field guide to academic leadership
(pp. 15-24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of men and
women. Journal of Social Issues, 57 (4), 781-797.
Eagley, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Van Engen, M. L. (2003).

Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-
analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129 (4), 569-591.
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 108 (2), 233-256.
Filan, G. L. (1999). The need for leadership training: The evolution of the chair
academy. New Directions for Community Colleges, 105, 47-55.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction
(6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers.
Gillett-Karam, R. (1999). Midlevel management in the community college: A rose

garden? New Directions for Community Colleges, 105, 5-11.
Gmelch, W. H. (1991). Paying the price for academic leadership: Department chair
tradeoffs. Educational Record, 72, 45-50.
Gmelch, W. H. (2004). The department chairs’ balancing act. New Directions for
Higher Education, 126, 69-84.
Gmelch, W. H., & Burns, J. S. (1993). The cost of academic leadership: Department
chair stress. Innovative Higher Education, 17 (4), 259-270.
178
Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions
of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
73 (4), 695-702.
Hartog, D. N., & Van Muijen, J. J. (1997). Transactional versus transformational

leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational & Organizational
Psychology, 70 (1), 19-35.
Hecht, I. W. D. (2004). The professional development of department chairs. New

Directions for Higher Education, 126, 27-44.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Natemeyer, W. E. (1979). Situational leadership and
power. Group and Organization Studies, 4 (4), 418-428.
Hilton, L. (2003). Eye on educators: Now you see ‘em….ASRT Scanner, 36 (2) 8-11.
Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (1998). Applied statistics for the behavioral
sciences (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Howell, D. C. (1997). Statistical methods for psychology (4th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Duxbury Press.
Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformational/charismatic leadership’s transformation of the field:

An historical essay. Leadership Quarterly, 10 (2) 129-145.
Jablonski, M. (1996). The leadership challenge for women college presidents.

Initiatives, 57 (4) 1-10.
Johnson, L. (1999). Response and recommendations to economically-driven changes

impacting clinical education/training. Proceedings of the Pioneering Allied
Health Clinical Education Reform National Consensus Conference, 21-22.
Johnson, B., & Turner, L. A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods
research. In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in
social and behavioral research (pp. 297-319). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Joint Review Committee on Education in Radiologic Technology. (2001). Standards for

an accredited educational program in radiologic sciences. Chicago, IL: Author.
Joint Review Committee on Education in Radiologic Technology. (2003). 2002 annual

report. Chicago, IL: Author.
Joint Review Committee on Education in Radiologic Technology. (2005). 2004 annual

report. Chicago, IL: Author.
179
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and
transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (5), 751-765.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and
leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87 (4), 765-780.
Kemper, E. A., Stringfield, S., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Mixed methods sampling strategies
in social science research. In A. Tashakkori , & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of
mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 273-296). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Kirby, P. C., Paradise, L. V., & Kine, M. I. (1992). Extraordinary leaders in education:
Understanding transformational leadership. Journal of Educational Research, 85
(5), 303-311.
Kirk, R. E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (3rd
ed.). Albany, NY: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Kistler O. (1988). Leadership behavior of program directors in radiologic technology

schools. (UMI No. 8817748)
Leaming, D. R. (2002). Academic deans. In R. M. Diamond (Ed.), Field guide to

academic leadership (pp. 437-450). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Leftwich, P. R. (2001). Transformational leadership at the department chair level in

North Carolina community colleges. (ED 457938).
Lindholm, J. (1999). Preparing department chairs for their leadership roles. [Eric Digest:
ED 433870].
Lowe, K. B., & Galen Kroeck, K. (1996). Effectiveness of transformational and

transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature.
Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425.
Lucas, A. F. (1994). Strengthening departmental leadership: A team-building guide for

chairs in colleges and universities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Lucas, A. F. (2000). A teamwork approach to change in the academic department. In A.

F. Lucas (Ed.), Leading academic change: Essential roles for department chairs
(pp. 7-32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Maher, K. J. (1997). Gender-related stereotypes of transformational and transactional

leadership. Sex Roles, 37 (3/4), 209-225.
Miller, M. T., & Seagren, A. T. (1997). Strategies for coping with job challenges in the
community college department: A comparison of chair perceptions by work
180
experience. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 21 (5), 493-
501.
Mindgarden. (2003). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Available:

http://www.mindgarden.com/Assessments/mlq.htm Accessed: November 6, 2003.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). NY: McGraw Hill.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed
methods research. In A. Tashakkori , & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed
methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351-383). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and

prediction (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Pernick, R. (2001). Creating a leadership development program: Nine essential tasks.

Public Personnel Management, 30 (4), 429-442.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader

behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction,
commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of
Management, 22 (2), 259-298.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990).

Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader
satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1
(2), 107-142.
Rosener, J. B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68 (6), 119-125.
Ross, S. M., & Offermann, L. R. (1997). Transformational leaders: Measurement of

personality attributes and work group performance. Personality and Social
Psychological Bulletin, 23 (10), 1078-1086.
Seagren, A. T. (1993). The department chair: New roles, responsibilities, and challenges.
[Eric Digest: ED 363165].
Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and
consideration. Journal of Management, 16 (4), 693-703.
Shaver, G. W. (2003). The relationship between the perceived leadership styles of

directors of associate degree radiography programs and faculty satisfaction,
181
willingness to exert extra effort, perceived director effectiveness, and program
outcomes. (UMI No. 3095029)
Silverthorne, C. (2001). Leadership effectiveness and personality: A cross-cultural

evaluation. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 303-309.
Smith, A. B., & Stewart, G. A. (1999). A statewide survey of new department chairs:
Their experiences and needs in learning their roles. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 105, 29-36.
Sparks, L. R., & Greathouse, J. S. (2001). Expanding boundaries. Radiologic

Technology, 72 (3), 284-286.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003a). Major issues and controversies in the use of
mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A. Tashakkori , & C.
Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research
(pp. 3-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003b). The past and future of mixed methods research:
From data triangulation to mixed model designs. In A. Tashakkori , & C. Teddlie
(Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 671-
701). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Tejada, M. J., Scandura, T. A., & Pillai, R. (2001). The MLQ revisited: Psychometric
properties and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 31-52.
Tepper, B. J., & Percy, P. M. (1994). Structural validity of the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54 (3), 734-744.
Tucker, A. (1993). Chairing the academic department: Leadership among peers (3rd
ed.). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
Vecchio, R. P. (2002). Leadership and gender advantage. The Leadership Quarterly, 13,
643-671.
Vecchio, R. P. (1995). Organizational behavior (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt
Brace & Company.
Warren, C. O. (1993). Chairperson and dean: The essential partnership. In J. B. Bennett

& D. J. Figuli (Eds.), Enhancing departmental leadership: The roles of the
chairperson (pp. 30-35). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
Wheeler, D. W. (2002). Chairs as institutional leaders. In R. M. Diamond (Ed.), Field

guide to academic leadership (pp. 451-468). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
182
Wolverton, M., Gmelch, W. H., Wolverton, M. L., & Sarros, J. C. (1999). A comparison
of department chair tasks in Australia and the United States. Higher Education,
38, 333-350.
183
APPENDIX A
LETTER TO RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM DIRECTORS
February 7, 2005
Dear Colleague:
I am a radiologic technology program director and a doctoral candidate at

Louisiana State University. I am conducting a study for my dissertation which focuses
on the responsibilities of radiologic technology program directors and their leadership
skills as related to the responsibilities. You have been selected to participate in this study
of over 500 radiologic technology program directors from JRCERT accredited radiologic
technology programs.
Enclosed you will find a consent form and two surveys: the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and a Leadership Matrix. The MLQ is designed to
measure your leadership characteristics and the Leadership Matrix will assess your
responsibilities and your leadership skills in relation to the responsibilities. If you agree
to respond, please complete the consent form, Leadership Matrix and the MLQ and return
them in the enclosed postage paid envelope.
After collection of this data, some participants may be chosen to participate in a

second portion of the study which will consist of 30-60 minute telephone interviews. The
interviews are designed to provide a better understanding of the data obtained from the
questionnaires.
Your confidentiality will be protected to the best of my ability. An identification

number (located on each questionnaire) will be used to correlate data. Your name will
never be disclosed. All data will be kept secure. Responses will only be reported
collectively to help maintain confidentiality of participants. Participation in the study is
voluntary and you may withdraw at any time. If you wish to participate, please sign the
consent form and complete the Leadership Matrix and MLQ and return in the postage
paid envelope. If possible, please respond by March 7, 2005.
If you have any questions regarding the study or need additional clarification,
please feel free to contact me at 318-677-3069 or by email: carwilel@nsula.edu . I would
like to thank you in advance for taking time from your busy schedule to participate in this
study.
Sincerely yours,
Laura Carwile, MSRS, RT(R)(M)(QM)

Program Director and Doctoral Candidate
184
APPENDIX B
CONSENT FORM
Title of Research Project: Responsibilities and Leadership Styles of Radiologic
Technology Program Directors
Project Director: Laura Carwile, 318-677-3069, carwilel@nsula.edu
Purpose of Research: To identify the responsibilities that radiologic technology
program directors indicate as most important to their department and the satisfaction of
the responsibilities. Additionally, the leadership styles of program directors will be
identified. This information will help to identify areas for potential professional
development among leaders in radiologic technology.
Methods: In this research, participants will complete two instruments, the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire and the Leadership Matrix. Additionally, some participants
will complete a 30-60 minute interview focusing on why certain responsibilities are
important to a department and which leadership skills are used for specific
responsibilities. All interviews will be tape recorded and fully transcribed. At any time
during the interview, you may request that the tape recorder be turned off.
Potential Risks & Benefits: Your identity will be protected by using codes on the two
instruments. All data collected will be reported in a composite form; therefore there will
be no chance for identification of participants. For the interviews, your identity will be
protected by using pseudonyms and masking all direct references that may reveal your
identity. Since all efforts will be made to keep your identity confidential, we do not
perceive any risks to the participants.
185
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and you have the right to
withdraw from the study at any point in time without consequence. Results of this study
may be published, but no names or identifying information will be included in the
publication. Participant identity will remain confidential to all except research team
members.
The study has been discussed with me and all my questions have been answered. I may
direct additional questions regarding study specifics to the investigators. If I have
questions about subjects' rights or other concerns, I can contact Robert C. Mathews,
Chairman, LSU Institutional Review Board, (225)578-8692. I agree to participate in the
study described above and acknowledge the researchers' obligation to provide me with a
copy of this consent form if signed by me.
_________________________ ___________________________ ____________
Participant Signature Participant Name (printed) Date
186
APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE ITEMS FROM THE MLQ
I provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts
I re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate
I focus attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards
I talk about my most important values and beliefs
I talk optimistically about the future
187
APPENDIX D
LEADERSHIP MATRIX
Organization ID#: ____________
Section 1: Demographic Information
Please respond to following demographic information about yourself, your
department, and your experience:
Gender: Male ______
Female ______
Program Type: Certificate ______
Associate ______
Baccalaureate ______
Institution Type: Hospital/medical center ______
2 year community college ______
4 year college/university ______
Vocational/technical institute ______
Other ______
Number of Years as Program Director: ______
Highest degree completed: Associate ______
Baccalaureate ______
Masters ______
PhD or EdD ______
Other ______ (please specify) _______________________
Discipline of Highest Degree: Radiologic Technology ______
Education ______
188
Business ______
Other ______ (please specify) _________________
Section 2: Leadership Matrix
Below are descriptions of typical responsibilities of program directors and a brief

description of the duties involved with those responsibilities. Please review them and use
them to answer the subsequent portions of the questionnaire.
Responsibility 1: Department Governance: The duties related to this responsibility

include: conducting department meetings, establishing committees, developing plans and
goals, implementing plans and goals, preparing for accreditation, and encouraging faculty
to share ideas for department improvement.
Responsibility 2: Instruction: The duties related to this responsibility include:

scheduling classes, supervising clinical program, and updating the curriculum and
courses.
Responsibility 3: Faculty Affairs: The duties related to this responsibility include:

recruiting and hiring faculty, assigning faculty responsibilities, evaluating faculty,
handling poor faculty performance, keeping faculty informed of department/institution
activities and plans, resolving faculty conflict, and encouraging faculty participation.
Responsibility 4: Student Affairs: The duties related to this responsibility include:

recruiting and selecting students, advising students, resolving student conflicts, and
working with student organizations.
Responsibility 5: External Communication: The duties related to this responsibility

include: communicating department needs to institution, improving or maintaining the
department’s reputation in the institution, completing forms and surveys, and
coordinating activities with outside entities such as clinical education settings.
Responsibility 6: Budget and Resources: The duties related to this responsibility

include: encouraging faculty to submit grants, seeking outside funding, preparing
department budget, administering department budgets, making decisions on resource
allocation, and preparing annual reports.
Responsibility 7: Office Management: The duties related to this responsibility include:

managing department facilities and equipment, monitoring security and maintenance of
equipment, supervising department staff, and maintaining student and clinical records.
Responsibility 8: Professional Development: The duties related to this responsibility

include: developing faculty talents and interests, fostering good teaching practices, and
encouraging faculty research and publication.
189
Please rate your impression of the importance of the following responsibilities
within your program.
Responsibility Low High
importance importance
Department 1 2 3 4
governance
Instruction 1 2 3 4
Faculty affairs 1 2 3 4
Student affairs 1 2 3 4
External 1 2 3 4
communication
Budget and resources 1 2 3 4
Office management 1 2 3 4
Professional 1 2 3 4
development
Please rate your satisfaction with your leadership skills as related to the following
responsibilities:
Responsibility Low High
satisfaction satisfaction
with skills with skills
External 1 2 3 4
communication
Office management 1 2 3 4
Professional 1 2 3 4
development
Student affairs 1 2 3 4
Department 1 2 3 4
governance
Budget and resources 1 2 3 4
Instruction 1 2 3 4
Faculty affairs 1 2 3 4
190
Please list any additional responsibilities that you have that were not included in this
listing of responsibilities.
191
APPENDIX E
REMINDER POSTCARD
Dear Colleague:
You recently were asked to participate in a study regarding the responsibilities of
radiologic technology program directors and their leadership skills in relation to the
responsibilities. If you have not already done so, I would like to encourage you to
complete the instruments that were sent to you and return them in the postage paid
envelope no later than March 7, 2005. Thank you again for your time and consideration
in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Laura Carwile, MSRS, RT(R)(M)(QM)
Doctoral Candidate
192
APPENDIX F
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Opening Statement: the purpose of this interview is to obtain information than can
enhance our understanding of leadership styles in relation to the responsibilities of
radiologic technology program directors. As a radiologic technology program director,
who has had experience in handling many leadership responsibilities, you are in a
position to describe the leadership styles that you have utilized in specific situations. The
information that is gained from these interviews will be used in papers and presentations
related to leadership. No real names will be used in the paper, as noted on the consent
form. If you would like a copy of the paper, I would be happy to provide you with one.
As we go through the interview, if you have any questions about why I am asking you
something or if you need further clarification, please feel free to ask. Do you have any
questions before we begin?
Questions:
1. What job performance skills do you feel most equipped to handle?
2. In the survey you completed you were asked to rank the importance of several
responsibilities within your program. Those responsibilities were department
governance, instruction, faculty affairs, student affairs, external communication,
budget and resources, office management, and professional development.
According to some of my preliminary analysis of the data, many program
directors rated instruction as the most important of their responsibilities. Do you
agree with this? Why or why not?
3. What job performance skills do you feel least prepared to handle?
4. According to some of my preliminary analysis of the data, many program

directors rated budget and resources as the least important of their responsibilities.
Do you agree with this? Why or why not?
5. In general, the responsibilities that program directors rated as most important to

their departments were also the ones they felt most comfortable with their skills
and those rated as less important were the skills they were least comfortable with.
Why do you think this is true?
6. Describe your personal leadership style.
7. Some leaders are characterized as being charismatic, inspirational, providing

incentives for others’ behavior, intellectually stimulating, closely monitoring
followers, or considerate. Which of these characteristics do you see as most
important? Which of these characteristics is least important to you? Which
characteristic do you feel that you have to the greatest degree? How does this
help you in your job?
193
8. What leadership skills would you most like to improve? (Probe for skills that
would help them most in their jobs)
9. What would be most helpful to you to learn leadership?
10. Do you think your program type or institution type influence the leadership skills
that you utilize?
194
VITA
Laura Susan LaPointe was born on April 3, 1968 in Tulsa, Oklahoma. During her
childhood, she lived in Oklahoma, Maryland, Texas, and Louisiana. During middle
school, her father retired from the United States Army and the family moved to Lake
Charles, Louisiana. She graduated from Alfred M. Barbe High School in Lake Charles.
She received her bachelor of science degree in radiologic technology from McNeese
State University in 1991. After completing her degree she worked as a radiologic
technologist through 1995.
In 1996, Laura took a position as an instructor of radiologic technology at
Northwestern State University. During this time, she began work on her master of
science degree in radiologic science at Midwestern State University. In 1998 she
completed her degree and was also named as program director of the radiologic
technology program at Northwestern State University. In 2001, she left Northwestern
State University to pursue her doctorate degree full time. As a doctoral student, Laura
served as a research assistant for Dr. Becky Ropers-Huilman and taught as an adjunct
instructor for online courses for two radiologic technology programs. In 2003, she
returned to Northwestern State University as the program director and continued her
work on her doctorate. On March 23, 2005, Laura married Cary Aaron and lives happily
with him in Shreveport, Louisiana.
195

Responsibilities and Leadership Styles of Radiologic Technology P

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Responsibilities and Leadership Styles of Radiologic Technology P

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Louisiana State University

LSU Digital Commons

Responsibilities and leadership styles of radiologic

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations

The Department of Educational

members Dr. Marietta Del Favero and Dr. Christine Distefano.

to me complain, encouraged me to continue, and provided support in a variety of ways.

LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii

2 LITERATURE REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

B CONSENT FORM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185

C EXAMPLE ITEMS FROM THE MLQ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187

D LEADERSHIP MATRIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

E REMINDER POSTCARD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192

F INTERVIEW PROTOCOL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

1. Number of program directors interviewed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

2. Descriptions and ideal ratings for MLQ subscales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

3. Dependent variables and descriptions for research questions 3 & 4. . . . . . . . . . .77

4. Independent variables and descriptions for research questions 3 & 4. . . . . . . . . .77

5. Effect codes for program type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

6. Effect codes for discipline of highest degree. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78

8. Codes for gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

9. Codes for institution type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79

10. Descriptive characteristics of radiologic technology program directors. . . . . . . .84

11. Descriptive characteristics of radiologic technology programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85

12. Descriptive characteristics of interview participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86

13. Frequency of responses for importance of instruction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

14. Frequency of responses for importance of department governance. . . . . . . . . . . 87

15. Frequency of responses for importance of student affairs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88

16. Frequency of responses for importance of external communication. . . . . . . . . . .88

17. Frequency of responses for importance of faculty affairs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88

18. Frequency of responses for importance of professional development. . . . . . . . . 89

19. Frequency of responses for importance of budget and resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

20. Frequency of responses for importance of office management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

21. Means and standard deviations for importance of responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . 90

22. Frequency of responses for satisfaction of skills for instruction. . . . . . . . . . . . . .94

23. Frequency of responses for satisfaction of skills for student affairs. . . . . . . . . . . 94

25. Frequency of responses for satisfaction of skills for external communication. . . 95

26. Frequency of responses for satisfaction of skills for office management. . . . . . . 95

28. Frequency of responses for satisfaction of skills for faculty affairs. . . . . . . . . . . 96

30. Means and standard deviations for satisfaction with skills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

31. Comparison of rankings of importance to department vs. satisfaction with skills

32. Percentage of faculty responses related to methods of learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

33. Means and standard deviations for MLQ variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103

34. Correlation matrix for MLQ variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111

35. Reliability of the MLQ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111

36. Means and standard deviations for dependent variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

37. Comparison of beta weights of leadership styles for importance of

38. Comparison of beta weights of transformational factors for importance of

39. Comparison of beta weights of transactional factors for importance of

40. Means and standard deviations for dependent variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

42. Comparison of beta weights of transformational factors for level of satisfaction

2. Conceptual map of program director responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

3. Research design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

4. Modified conceptual map of program director responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . .162

5. Leadership matrix of program directors’ responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

relation to the responsibilities. In addition, the leadership styles of program directors

their satisfaction with their leadership skills.

This study utilized a mixed methods approach in order to gain a better

understanding of the responsibilities of program directors in radiologic technology and

expand the understanding of the quantitative data. The Multifactor Leadership

program directors in Joint Review Committee on Education in Radiologic Technology

were identified in the qualitative data.